Respect For The Dead Or Fear Of What Lies Ahead?

 My brief comments regarding  Stephen Jay Gould’s family suing over his death from cancer at the hands of inept doctors generated a greater response than anticipated, once again proving the role played by evolution as a fault line in the ongoing battle of values dividing much of America.  Yet despite the emotional responses Darwin’s theory continues to evoke, those seeking to escape the implications of a universe created and sustained by God continue to formulate arguments in defense of their position that even a Neanderthal could see through.

 One response chided me as a soulless individual for supposedly  “speaking so ill of the dead” for pointing out the inconsistencies of materialists seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one since by definition that worldview has no objective standard upon which to base right or wrong with human beings ultimately of no more importance than the disease organisms doctors regularly seek to eradicate.

 On what grounds does a naturalist accuse someone of having no soul?  To the naturalist, the soul does not exist.

 If matter is all that exists and is the ultimate foundation of the universe, mind is nothing more than electronic impulses coursing through the brain.  Thus, if we are nothing more than the sum of the sum total of our physical parts, one can no more be held accountable for one’s comments than they can be for the need to go to the bathroom if thoughts are to the brain what urine is to the kidneys.

 Interestingly, why do those professing belief that this world is all that is with no afterlife even care whatsoever about what I have to say about someone that has ceased to exist?  It’s not like the deceased is going to read my comments.

 Though Christianity affirms the existence of an afterlife, there is nothing in the Bible saying we are forbidden from discussing the ignoble deeds of the departed.  If we were forbidden from doing so, that would also mean we could not discuss the failings of Joseph McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, or any other figure the Left feels the need to criticize incessantly.  Why should Stephen Jay Gould be granted an exception?

 In all likelihood having now had his faulty thinking corrected through the singeing flames of hellfire if he continued to deny Christ until his last breath,  Dr. Gould would probably thank me for taking the time to warn others of the errors and inconsistencies of his previously held views.  In Luke 16:27-28, the rich man sent to hell says, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”

 In the raising of such a fuss about correcting the fallacies of the errant departed, one is forced to speculate whether such concerns are raised out of a misdirected sense of propriety or more from a desire to avoid contemplating the fate that awaits themselves should they continue to ignore the pangings of their own conscience.

 Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins 

Yet Another Celebration Pandering To Minorities

 In promoting racial equality, it is often harped that on the inside we are all the same regardless of color or background.  Apparently that isn't quite the case since we are now being bombarded by yet another celebration pandering to minorities.

 Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day (try putting that on a greeting card) seeks to, well, raise awareness of transplant organs and minorities.  While one can hardly oppose the quest for good health, like many other causes promoted by the liberals, this one should also be subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought.

 For starters, if we are going to have a Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day, shouldn't we also have a Caucasian Transplant Organ Awareness Day?  Not every White person that needs a transplant organ gets one either.

 So why is it inherently more tragic if this tragedy befalls a minority than your run of the mill White person?  Furthermore, if there was only a single organ available, can anyone justify why Jesse Jackson would be more deserving of it than Ted Kennedy?  Even more importantly, are those White big shots that enjoy imposing minority favoritism on the rest of us in order to show how enlightened and progressive they are going to forego an organ for themselves or a loved one in favor of a minority should they ever find themselves in such a situation or is this merely another burden they expect to pass on to the average White American?

 From the way these public campaigns are expressed, you'd think the average White guy was as immortal as Ducan McCloud of the Clan McCloud from the Highlander series. However, seems to me White folks drop dead from the same afflictions.

 In one news story justifying this day of ethnic guilt, the Associated Press laments that American Indians make up 34% and Hispanics 42% of those awaiting kidney transplants in New Mexico.  Maybe if these communities learned to lay off the booze a bit, they could reduce the numbers instead of shifting the blame to Whitey.

 Even among conservative circles, it is now popular to claim that racial differences do not exist.  While that should be true in the eyes of the law, if it is so in terms of biology, shouldn't organs be interchangeable between various groups if these distinctions are nothing more than arbitrary cosmetics?

 Seems this issue will force the proponents of radical multiculturalism to make a decision in favor of either their fantasies of absolutist egalitarianism or the system of demographic spoils they have devised to ultimately lavish power on themselves as the administrators of a new ethnic feudalism.

 Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

The Hillary Clinton We Know And Love

Lest you thought that just because Hillary has attempted to moderate her voice recently as she eyes a Presidential run in 2008 that she was not the same old Marxist we've come to know take a gander at the new Bill she is pushing in the Congress. The "Count Every Vote Act of 2005" keeps Hillary's aspirations for power in perspective.

But as usual with Liberals, the devil is in the details. Like a good Marxist, Senatorette Clinton has wrapped within the shroud of proper reform, the seeds of the destruction for this Republic should the Bill pass and become Law. The Bill provides that Social Security Numbers should not be used to identify potential voters; a good and proper thing. It also provides that a paper ballot trail be instituted which if done right would be an excellent method of overcoming some forms of voter fraud.

But beyond the few good things proposed there are several disturbing over steps of the Federal powers of Congress. The Act would go even further by compelling States to allow felons to vote and calling for federal enforcement of "an equal waiting time" for voters. As if trying to enforce an "equal waiting time" would not be hard enough (I suppose that the Liberals would have the police remove Auntie Marge from the voting booth before she was finished if she took too long) it calls that "Each state and jurisdiction shall accept and process a voter registration application for an election for Federal office unless there is a material omission or information that specifically effects the eligibility of the voter."

Now that sounds pretty good right? Sure! After all, who isn't against any legal voter being allowed to vote? But reading on we find the more sinister parts of this plan. One of these states that "The failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age in a manner other than a simple statement that one is a citizen" shall not be considered a 'material omission'.

You and I both know what that means. Yep, election day chaos as left wing voters leap from precinct to precinct registering, voting, reregistering and revoting time and again because the law provides for no method to confirm that these people are who they say they are. All you have to do is step up and say "I am a citizen", provide the name of a legal voter who you hope wont show up and vote that day and you get to vote.

And the election day chaos that this Bill would cause is exactly what the left wing Marxists want because they have not been able to win at the ballot boxes in recent history. The plan is simple. Flood the polls on election day with as many voters as you can, bog down the system and hope and pray that they can't sort out the mess and confirm all the "voters" before the legally required deadlines set in each state to certify the results. "Vote early and vote often" would never have the same meaning again should this Bill be passed.

And once the results are certified it is all over.

Remember Florida 2000? Remember Democrats scurrying in vain to find enough votes to steal the election? Now imagine patriotic Americans scrambling nation wide to confirm millions of suspect ballots and registrations in a few weeks before the results become "official". That is exactly the type of crisis that left wing Democrats and their fellow travelers are attempting to set up. "Counting every vote" is a mantra that sounds really good. But the problem is that they really want to "count every vote" not "count every legal vote". They want to count every vote from every illegal alien currently in the States. They want to count every vote from every non-citizen they can bus in from Mexico and Canada on election day. They want to count every vote from every dead person they can dig up. And most importantly they want to cause a constitutional crisis and topple the Republic by setting it up to fail.

The "Count Every Vote Act of 2005" is simply the latest attempt by left wing Marxists upset by a string of recent election losses to regain power. It is an attempt to usurp the sovereignty of the United States by wrapping within reforms that are good and proper, the seeds of our own destruction and the insurance of their own power for years to come. Do not fall for the carrot on the stick because the carrot is laced with deadly poison.