The Masked Conservative

Once upon a time, the British use to be renowned for their sense of propriety and decorum. Now it seems, however, they are letting it all hang out just like all the other nations of the decadent West.

Trafalgar Square is, to put it most simply, a square in central London commemorating the Battle of Trafalgar. Makes you wonder then why then they have decided to place a statue of a disabled, pregnant naked lady amidst this memorial to great military heroes.

One characteristic of all decaying nations is the rush to distance themselves from the values of their pasts. As such, the Mayor of London, terrorist sympathizer Ken Livingstone, has expressed a desire to have many of the statues of the historical greats taken down and replaced with those of personalities more relevant to the 21st century, this no doubt being a euphemism for the purposes of honoring perverts and deviants.

For yet another characteristic of declining cultures is an unseemly public obsession with the sexual and abnormal. The nude is being justified in part to serve as a balance to "triumphant male statuary" dominating the park, that classification providing a great deal of insight to the deviant creating the sculpture who at one time crafted a replica of his head made of 4.5 liters of his own frozen blood.

But if that was the only reason, why not make a statue of this lady with some cloths on? We are further told of the need of the statue by the model herself because, "There is so much prejudice around sexuality, disability, femininity and pregnancy..."

Maybe so, but shouldn't her naked beauty be something only for her husband to behold and relish? If anything, in light of so many pregnant women thrusting their bear bellies into plain view stretch marks and all (i.e. the Dove Soap hussies), a little more Victorian restraint might do us some good with more being left to the imagination once again.

Monuments such as Trafalgar Square commemorate noble deeds undertaken in honor of God and country. But had these men seen what the future was to hold, you are forced to stop and wonder if they would have even bothered in the first place.

Republicans were able to gain power during the mid 90’s in part by promising to abolish welfare as we know it. However, as these reformers once motivated by the idealism of their convictions have grown accustomed to the perks of public office, they are no longer quite so eager to bring about the abolition of these programs as they are to expand entitlement programs to create whole new levels of dependency.

One of the surest ways to maintain one’s hold on power, to extend the scope of government, and to minimize criticism of one’s pet projects is to couch these in terms of defending some venerable institution. Environmentalists have so mastered the technique that now those daring to question this movement are characterized as being in favor of dirty water and bunny massacres.

As a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, most Americans view marriage and family as one of the building blocks of a stable social order. Thus, those brave enough to question a proposal being introduced by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback will no doubt be cast as enemies of children and families. But the things these critics are really standing up for are just as important and perhaps even more fundamental values such as self-reliance and a sense of personal sobriety that one does not always get the things one wants especially if one is not patient enough to follow the proper steps in their own time to acquire them.

The plan promoted by Brownback would give low income residents of the District of Columbia Marriage and Pre-marriage Accounts where the government would match $3.00 for every dollar contributed by the account holder up to $4500. The theory is that encouraging marriage is good for children.

But if we are now considering dishing out what amounts to what could be rightly construed as a marriage subsidy, doesn’t this amount to yet another form of welfare? Furthermore, such handouts would do little to actually strengthen marriage since such funds would most likely go to those that don’t value marriage all that much to begin with.

This was evident with the couple profiled in a July 31, 2005 Washington Post story detailing the Brownback proposal. The couple chronicled has not yet gotten married because the couple is strapped for cash because he is unemployed and disabled with a back injury and to her it’s simply not enough to bask in the joy and pleasure of solemnizing the couple’s love before God and man as this woman already on a number of government assistance programs demands a storybook wedding.

Yet despite claiming to delay matrimony because of economic excuses, this has not stopped them from playing house by shacking up and having a baby on top of the fact she already has another child by another dude. Apparently the baby’s daddy isn’t too disabled; he might not be suffering so much from a bad back as he is a lazy rear-end.

This couple made their own decision to do things out of order after sitting in a tree, skipping the first comes love and then comes marriage stage going straight to the baby carriage. Frankly, why should the rest of us have to dig deeper into our pockets to buffer the consequences of their actions?

If couples such as this are not going to get married and (as most Americans possessed the moral courage to say in eras with a bit more class) “live in sin”, doesn’t it prove they do not value marriage to begin with? Why do some such as Senator Brownback insist throwing more public money at the problem is going to resolve the issue?

This is pretty much the approach that has been taken in regards to public education and look at the sorry state the public schools are in. Do we really want to endanger marriage further through additional government handouts and interference?

Those defending Marriage Saving Accounts insist that the “downtrodden” and “underprivileged” need public assistance in establishing their homes and families. However, according to the specifics of the proposal, beneficiaries can make up to $25,000 if they have no dependents and up to $50,000 if one has dependents and a total net worth of less than $10,000. Thus in plain language, what these programs do is reward those refusing to exercise a little self control or willingness to delay gratification by saving for a rainy day.

Why should others have to have what they have worked for taken and given to someone that could theoretically be making more than they do but lacks character so that the less frugal can enjoy many of the things those with the integrity to lead productive lives apart from the patronage of the state cannot afford and must delay acquiring until later down the road? Why shouldn’t the same be expected of the indolent and licentious?

It’s not like the highlighted couple is living on the streets. According to the Post, they have a roof over their heads. Since this is the case, their living arrangements are no concern of the government or even the church to much of a degree.

In the Washington, DC area where the average house is now pushing between $300,000 and $500,000, if subsidies were dished out to all of those unable to afford real estate prices, just about everybody would be suckling off the government teat.

Marriage and family are indeed a fundamental building block of a stable social order. However, these will falter unless composed of individuals that value these institutions more than any bribe to entice them into them and realize no one is responsible for their success and happiness other than themselves.

Wonder how those for the abolition of the Ten Commandments think society is fairing now without these fundamental principles.

According to one story, a nursing home has been raided --- respect for the elderly being thrown out the window and all. In other incidents, vagabonds are now taking shots at rescue copters assisting in the evacuation.

This is now longer about "survival". These scumbags are attempting to establish their own rule as warlords.

In one ironic twist, police ran off looters from an Office Depot while law enforcement officials were themselves helping themselves to "five finger discounts" because in times of emergency officials have the power to "commandeer" buildings and supplies.

Do police plan to keep a tabulation of the goods they have procured for the sake of the COMMUNITY for later reimbursement; if not it's still theft no matter how you gussy it up.

So in essence, at those times when property rights matter the most, they count the least as it seems you are nothing more than a caretaker until the state needs to come along and appropriate these resources from you.

Seems no one is safe from anyone --- be they civilian or government --- in the expanding lawlessness of the New World Order where the strong are being allowed to take what they want from the weak.

Pray hard, America, for the hour of tyranny may be at hand.

Given the “so what?” and “You better be quiet or its off to a reeducation camp with you” response I’ve gotten from even a number of so-called “Conservatives” regarding the Harry Potter craze and reports of Lois Lane’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I guess what I am about to describe is considered OK now as well.

I first heard of this listening to an episode of Kevin Swanson’s Generations Radio archived at . Doesn’t take a theological genius to realize that the Episcopal Church is a joke, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

On May 22. 2005, a so-called “Clown Mass” was held at Trinity Church in New York City where these buffoons made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. With sodomites infesting the ranks of this harlot denomination, certainly puts the term “assclown” into an entirely different context.

Such antics are not the first plunge of the ranks of Episcopal/Anglican clergy into such lunacy. In the late 60’s or there abouts, a number of Episcopal ministers parachuted off a building in order to “bring the young people back into the church”. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has jokingly remarked of the incident, if God wasn’t dead, maybe He wishes He were.

More traditional Evangelicals stand back and watch, thinking such foolishness could never occur in their denominations and congregations. The sad truth is these once stalwart bastions of theological propriety are well on their way to reveling in such ecclesiastical hijinks.

Since they prefer to do nothing more than mock and ridicule the traditional American way of “doing church”, what’s to prevent the Emergent Church movement from resorting to a Clown Communion of their own? After all, with their baggie, torn pants and bodies proudly defaced with tattoos, many in these religious freak shows are already well on their way to looking like clowns.

With most socioreligious taboos being tossed aside, a vast number of Evangelicals out of a misbegotten perception that since the Blood of Christ covers over a broad array of sins hold that these sins must no longer be construed as sins for fear of running afoul of public constituencies promoting such behaviors. In such a do-your-own-thing environment, the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper dangles by a very thin thread. For if many in the church aren’t even going to bat an eye at literature casting witchcraft in a positive light and consider it a greater impropriety to point out the scandal of procreating outside of marriage than actually breeding like a rabbit without legal blessing, what is to prevent us from getting to the point of viewing this sacrament as little more than midmorning crackers and juice if we are no longer to be shocked by the previously mentioned transgressions in our jaded age?

How much farther are things going to go? If you raise concerns about the influence of witchcraft over the minds of the young or raise an eyebrow as to the propriety of Superman’s main squeeze living a life of sleaze, you’re the one they want to burn at the stake or run out of town. Won’t be long until those insisting the Lord’s Supper be conducted with sobriety and decorum will be castigated as intolerant fuddies out of touch with developing religious sensibilities.

During the French Revolution, violent mobs desecrated a cathedral by sitting a scantily clad woman upon the altar. At least those minions of perdition had the decency to be upfront about their anti-Christian motives. Today, those that would defile holy things have either learned to be more deceptive about their blasphemy or not quite as intelligent about the evil they do since silliness has replaced seriousness throughout much of the modern church.

Given the “so what?” and “You better be quiet or its off to a reeducation camp with you” response I’ve gotten from even a number of so-called “Conservatives” regarding the Harry Potter craze and reports of Lois Lane’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I guess what I am about to describe is considered OK now as well.

I first heard of this listening to an episode of Kevin Swanson’s Generations Radio archived at . Doesn’t take a theological genius to realize that the Episcopal Church is a joke, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

On May 22. 2005, a so-called “Clown Mass” was held at Trinity Church in New York City where these buffoons made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. With sodomites infesting the ranks of this harlot denomination, certainly puts the term “assclown” into an entirely different context.

Such antics are not the first plunge of the ranks of Episcopal/Anglican clergy into such lunacy. In the late 60’s or there abouts, a number of Episcopal ministers parachuted off a building in order to “bring the young people back into the church”. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has jokingly remarked of the incident, if God wasn’t dead, maybe He wishes He were.

More traditional Evangelicals stand back and watch, thinking such foolishness could never occur in their denominations and congregations. The sad truth is these once stalwart bastions of theological propriety are well on their way to reveling in such ecclesiastical hijinks.

Since they prefer to do nothing more than mock and ridicule the traditional American way of “doing church”, what’s to prevent the Emergent Church movement from resorting to a Clown Communion of their own? After all, with their baggie, torn pants and bodies proudly defaced with tattoos, many in these religious freak shows are already well on their way to looking like clowns.

With most socioreligious taboos being tossed aside, a vast number of Evangelicals out of a misbegotten perception that since the Blood of Christ covers over a broad array of sins hold that these sins must no longer be construed as sins for fear of running afoul of public constituencies promoting such behaviors. In such a do-your-own-thing environment, the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper dangles by a very thin thread. For if many in the church aren’t even going to bat an eye at literature casting witchcraft in a positive light and consider it a greater impropriety to point out the scandal of procreating outside of marriage than actually breeding like a rabbit without legal blessing, what is to prevent us from getting to the point of viewing this sacrament as little more than midmorning crackers and juice if we are no longer to be shocked by the previously mentioned transgressions in our jaded age?

How much farther are things going to go? If you raise concerns about the influence of witchcraft over the minds of the young or raise an eyebrow as to the propriety of Superman’s main squeeze living a life of sleaze, you’re the one they want to burn at the stake or run out of town. Won’t be long until those insisting the Lord’s Supper be conducted with sobriety and decorum will be castigated as intolerant fuddies out of touch with developing religious sensibilities.

During the French Revolution, violent mobs desecrated a cathedral by sitting a scantily clad woman upon the altar. At least those minions of perdition had the decency to be upfront about their anti-Christian motives. Today, those that would defile holy things have either learned to be more deceptive about their blasphemy or not quite as intelligent about the evil they do since silliness has replaced seriousness throughout much of the modern church.