Tue, Dec 9th - 6:13PM
Thanksgiving Turkeys Not The Only Ones In America
Each Thanksgiving, the President pardons a turkey --- an actual barnyard fowl and not a member of Congress. For the most part, the custom is itself harmless and mildly cute; however, should taxpaying citizens learn what is done with the turkey, they will likely end up with a case of indigestion.
According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California. There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.
Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over. Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.
First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense? If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.
Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?
For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment. But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.
I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts. However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.
Often, America’s Puritan and Separatist founders are depicted as absolutely joyless and not having much fun in their lives. And maybe so by out standards. However, these solemn patriarchs are party animals in comparison to the glum-faced busybodies out to control in the name of the environment all aspects of the food you consume from what can go into your mouth and, increasingly as in regards to proclamations regarding no flush toilets, what is to be done with it once it comes out.
by Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
Fri, Nov 21st - 5:49PM
Nation's Capital Implements Measures Violating Rights & Property
As the nation's capital, Washington DC is often looked to for various approaches on how to handle a number of growing issues around the country. Usually government eggheads like to formulate their grandiose schemes from their comfortable halls of power and impose them upon areas of the heartland so far from scrutinizing eyes that very few end up seeing what is actually going on. However, there are now a number of policies being implemented within the city that will soon be at the forefront of efforts to undermine life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status. Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."
Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality. Think again.
In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access. It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.
However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street. Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.
For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not? Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth. Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?
Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away. What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?
For now, these blockades are often temporary. What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?
What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district? Already in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home. Wait, they are already trying to do that now.
If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency". Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions. There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.
The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States. Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.
According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.
Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship. However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.
In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own. According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.
One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth. In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went from $9000 to $83,000. As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.
Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want. Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.
Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so. Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.
Oh really? Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from $1500 to $22000. If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?
According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing. But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.
Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement. But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats) get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.
Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades. Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed. Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.
The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence. In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.
By Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
Thu, Nov 6th - 5:29PM
Character, Knowledge & Independent Thought Denounced As Bourgeoisie
Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If the proposals of one pedagogical theorist are implemented, students will in all likelihood never know anything about the figure believed to have uttered such an astute observation.
According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.
Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.
For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.
The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."
State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.
In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.
Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.
For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).
Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.
Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.
Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.
by Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
Wed, Sep 24th - 5:55PM
Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1
Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live. However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.
Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.
David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?
Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.
By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.
Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.
To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.
According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."
Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."
The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.
Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."
Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."
Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?
Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?
Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.
Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.
Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.
According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?
The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.
According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.
If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.
For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?
Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.
There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.
John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.
According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.
Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."
Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.
In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".
In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.
Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."
In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.
Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.
Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?
If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.
In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.
by Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
Sun, Sep 7th - 9:20AM
World's Gutter Governments To Sit In Judgment Over U.S. Human Rights Record
No one is perfect. As such, at times correction and admonition may need to be promulgated to set the ethically concerned back on the right path.
When issued by those adhering to the high standards to which they profess, such criticism can be looked upon as a helpful corrective to assist equals in living up to their potential. However, when such accusations are leveled or sustained by those with no intentions of living up to the standard themselves, the maligned should turn the tables against such dubious defamers and expose just who it is that undermines dignity, order, and liberty.
According to a May 20, 2008 Washington Times article titled "U.N. Puts Its Scope On U.S. Racism", this world body has sent an envoy to the United States to gather information regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and "related intolerance". According to others in the human rights industry, such as Freedom House, this category of protections does not limit itself to narrowly defined matters such as abridgements of free speech or mass killings and seizures of property but also includes healthcare, education, and equal justice for immigrants and minorities.
For starters, before we start badmouthing what is available in this great land for these particular classes of people (especially immigrants), perhaps we should take a look at the places from which the new arrivals came. For a toilet bowl might be a dramatic improvement if you just crawled up from the sewer. If they have it so poor here, why did they come here in the first place, and if it is not to their liking here, they are always free to go back.
But even of greater concern than the quality of quantifiable conditions ought to be how much of what the U.N. is investigating is more attitudinal in nature. While no one that loves justice and views each individual as a unique creature made in the image of God wants to see the rights of others infringed upon in terms of the individual being secure in the livelihood and possessions they are able to acquire for themselves, neither is it really the place of government or international institutions to infringe upon the ability of other individuals to think and express themselves in a free and minimally orderly manner. Civil society may be able to condemn certain beliefs from a moral standpoint, but it is not really the place of government to keep you from being as much of an ass as you want to be provided you keep your hands off the nose and the stuff of the guy next to you.
For example, the state has an interest in preventing instances of racial discrimination where an objective public accommodation has been denied. However, “xenophobia and related intolerance” are much more nebulous in nature and something much more in the eye of the beholder. To the average American with a background capable of balancing the need for free expression while maintaining a minimal level of politeness, when they hear the words “xenophobia and related intolerance” images come to mind of some uncouth lout yelling out “Stupid [insert racial slur of choice]” while hurling rotten tomatoes at his neighbor undeserving of such treatment.
However, even in other highly advanced English speaking nations such as Australia and Canada, these offences can be defined in such a way as "disparaging" a religion. This can consist of claiming that the doctrines of your faith are superior to that of another sect under consideration such as in the case of a Canadian ministry that pointed out the shortcomings of the Watchtower Society and in the case of McClean's Magazine where those pointing out the intentions of radical Islamists have been sued for racial defamation but no action has been taken against the aspiring Jihadists wanting to kill people.
However, it is likely not the traditional adversaries of freedom and liberty that those feigning an institutionalized concern for human rights may be out to squelch. For example, the grand inquisitor being sent to infiltrate the United States, Doudou Diene of Senegal, according to the Washington Times "has written extensively about Islamophobia in the 6 1/2 years since the World Trade Center Attack."
While it is not right to infringe upon the rights of those not responsible for the 9/11 Attack, a phobia does not by default constitute an abridgement of anyone's rights, and according to such a broad definition, any women that has seen the Sally Field picture "Not Without My Daughter" and has had second thoughts about being romanced by a Middle Easterner could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime. If one wanted to make a career of ridding the world of oppression and atrocities, one could find more fertile causes than nitpicking the shortcomings of the United States if one felt called to an international focus.
Frankly, one could spend several lifetimes rifling through the human rights records of many of the nations on the U.N. Humans Rights Council and still not have the time to air America's dirty laundry which is nothing more than a single used piece of toilet paper when compared to these cesspool countries.
For example, if you think prisoners on death row have it bad here, in Red China those executed (often for offences far less than the heinous deeds it is reserved for in the USA) are often shot in the back of the head so that their organs can be harvested. But I guess since this is done by Chinese to other Chinese, it doesn't really matter as the colorblind who claim we are all equal only get jacked out of shape when one color does it to another, proving they are not as colorblind as they bellicosely claim.
One of the reasons promulgated for this grand inquisitor of the United Nations to come poking around in the business of the United States is to sniff out any potential undercurrent of Islamophobia. Perhaps the council should be more concerned about the festering stench of Christophobia emanating from a number of the member nations sitting on its board.
For example, according to a story published at WorthyNews.com titled "Egypt: Security Police Torture Christian Convert Woman", for converting from Islam to Christianity one man's wife was beaten, raped twice, and electric shocks applied to her private parts. In Saudi Arabia, residents were deported for holding private Bible Studies in their homes.
Surely as much as Mexico trumpets for the rights for the free movement of people from one nation to another that that country must take a principled stand for immigrants to move and prosper elsewhere. Such a sentiment only applies to Mexicans going elsewhere and they don't even have to be doing it properly.
If the United States implemented Mexico's stand on immigration, we'd never hear the end of it from the leftwing rabble. Mexicans citizens born in Mexico can't even aspire to higher political office unless their parents are natural born citizens. And while Americans are to lavish all kinds of welfare handouts on illegals for violating our borders and expected to applaud the nobility of those violating these most basic of laws, Mexican police and military officials regularly rape and murder residents of other Latin American countries only doing what Mexican officials claim their own surplus populations have an inalienable right to do to the United States.
As sociopolitical entities comprised of fallen human beings, every nation has its flaws. However, the resources of the United Nations would be better utilized going after mass killers and the like than whether or not someone is getting their knickers in a knot over a wary glanced tossed in their direction as they walk down the street.
by Frederick Meekins
Comment (0)
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
| Dec. 2008 |
|
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
7 |
8 |
9
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
|
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
|
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
|
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
prev
|
|
next
|
|
|
Archives
|
| |
Name: Frederick Meekins
