Category: Culture

There is a connection in servile cultures between sex without boundaries and the condition of slavery, so much so that one can say that “free love” is the direct enemy of liberty. Unconstrained sexuality is the most obvious of all bribes that serves as an incentive to slavery. Strong and stable families that arise out of the Christian faith serve as a bulwark against the intentions of the State to enslave its people. Break down the family by the offering of sexual dainties, sold as calorie free, and the result will be a turning away from the Liberty created by stable families.

Second the lack of moral discipline that is fostered by sexual laxity translates easily into a lack of discipline characteristic of all slaves. The slave is a slave because he has no discipline. This observation is reinforced when we consider the connection between a lack of moral discipline as exhibited by unconstrained sexuality and the lack of moral discipline as exhibited in piling up economic debt. In both cases the lack of moral discipline encourages enslavement, either to the State or to creditors. The encouraging of sexual laxity, as well as the encouraging of a lack of economic probity ends up being mutually reinforcing with each vacuity creating and supporting the slave mindset.

The present cornucopia of sexual perversions in our culture is a indice that measures how far we have descended into slavery. There was a sound reason for Huxley to create a Brave New World where sexual appetite is encouraged.

Find me unrestrained and unbounded sexuality and I will show you slavery.

Rob Risko attends the church I am privileged to serve as Pastor. Rob is a Major in the Air Force Guard having flown combat sorties in one of the Desert Nouns. Rob realizes the challenges that the current military faces and has expressed his mind on that end more than once. Rob and his wife and family confess Christ and seek to think Christ’s thoughts after Him. He is a friend.

Occupy This, or That!

By Robert Risko · Friday, October 21, 2011

Politicians “test the waters” for democratic acceptance. With calls from North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue to “suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make” Patriots should recognize the increasingly toxic waters of Socialism staging its treacherous stand against the United States Constitution.

Occupy Wall Street! Occupy Denver! Occupy Los Angeles! Occupy London!

“[A]n armed uprising is inevitable, and…the time for it is fully ripe” might be a familiar phrase to readers. (1) The original statement is not a product of the “Occupiers” but is an official Marxist justification for the Bolshevik Revolution. A careful study of these two revolutionary movements may reveal protections that preserve the United States Constitutional peace. However, many may miss the significance of parallels in history where some real but often imagined conditions of today draw on the same faulty foundations as the Russian Civil War.

We should be vigilant for the next borrowed concept: “We now have the majority behind us.” (1) Already, this reasoning is openly embraced by the “Occupy Wall Street” group: “We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends.” (2) Perhaps the only restraint on “Occupy Mobocracy” is that they generally reject the Second Amendment.

Having compared the nature of the United States through history including the Mayflower Compact (3) (the first Colonial Covenant), Declaration of Independence (4), Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (5) (the first United States Constitution), Federalist (6) and Anti-Federalist Papers (7), United States Constitution of 1789 (8,9,10,11), War Department Training Manual 2000-25 (12), PatriotPost’s Essential Liberty booklet (13), and The Truth Project (14); a comprehensive citizenship lesson on United States Worldview was assembled. (15)

So pervasive is socialist indoctrination in the United States that even our countrymen in the military are fearful of an open discussion of the United States Constitution. Presented with a concise summary of the above reputable sources and designed to effectively educate a critical component of those under solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” (16) military “leaders” dismissed the discussion as “too contentious.” The very individuals with a special requirement to understand and charged to maintain the United States Constitution clearly rejected an opportunity to reintroduce the “1787 Founder” thoughts into modern military discourse.

Where then shall we find bravery and courage for our present challenges? Certainly it should have been from among our “best and brightest” citizens!

Yet the military “leadership” response should not be surprising to the discerning Patriot. Clearly the high calling of military service has been abandoned or surrendered as shown by the truth-twisting of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and redefining justice and integrity as “consent.” (17)

Further indications mark the decline of Constitution supporters and defenders within the military. Operation ODYSSEY DAWN, which aptly translates to “beginning of a long journey,” was readily prosecuted and heralded by military “leaders” as a success. However, as outlined by Mr. Glenn Greenwald in Congress vs. the President on War Powers, Libya employment was not sanctioned by the Constitutional authority for action against a sovereign nation-state in the form of a declaration of war or Congressional resolution. (8) This inaction of Congress renders the entire operation unconstitutional and thereby a grand failure of constitutional trustees. (18) Those charged with supporting and defending the Constitution should have been the most zealous for Rule of Law in accordance with their Oath of Office by denying the Presidential dictate.

Perhaps the absence of a public school or military education describing the proper responsibilities of citizenship is to blame. Or maybe a more perilous want of integrity has freed personal security to suppress “service before self” is the precipitant to wanton violation of the United States Constitution. Whatever the root cause, nothing could be more apparent than the critical need for personal responsibility rising out of a proper understanding and assent to the Foundation of the United States itself.

Sadly the problems of the United States are a national dilemma that permeates all of American society. They are the products of a larger indoctrination that has prevailed unchecked since the early 1930s and follow earlier constitutional violations of well-intentioned but imperfect men such as Lincoln. (19) The Prussian education system that we “enjoy” produces good employees and soldiers — “good” from the obtuse perspective that wealth can be created without creativity. Any autocrat simply wants obedient masses and will find in the publically-educated United States an abundance of unquestioning servants.

The good news brought about by the PatriotPost and the more recent Tea Party movement is a “questioning spirit” among the once quiet citizenry. It is to be emphasized that this questioning is distinct from anarchy! Upon finding a valid principle, anarchy will attempt to overthrow Civil Liberty so that self-imposed rules are the only remaining determinant of right and wrong (Total Liberty). In contrast, the discerning Patriot-citizen will affirm and defend a tested truth once questioning has found consummation. In these true citizens we find a great hope for this nation! Testing these foundations of our beliefs is crucial to understanding and defending them. Testing these foundations is also crucial to correcting fissures and deterioration that weaken the whole.

As we think on the current perceptions and historic definitions of “Occupy [this or that],” the concerns spelled out by Mr. Alexander in Obama’s Red October Uprising (20) should not be discounted but amplified. Today, concerns mount that the United States military in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are “occupiers.” Numerous public relations statements are pursued to maintain the understanding that United States presence in foreign nations is at the request of the host government and presence persists only so long as such assistance is required for a stable region.

While the general conclusions made by Mr. Alexander on the dangers of the “Occupy” movement are agreeable, the true nature of the “occupiers” is left undefined. This complete understanding is critical for Patriots as additional affronts to Rule of Law are intensified.

By definition, legal occupiers claim property or ascendancy where no previous claim exists. (21) Where a previous claim is enforceable, occupiers are given another name. The “Occupy” mobocracy claiming legitimacy over a preexisting claim (the U.S. Constitution) is an enemy occupation at best, and blatantly treasonous at worst! This statement is evident, including the International Occupy movements, where the very Constitutions granting rights to assemble and private property ownership are the same Constitutional forms of government and economy that the “Occupy” movement would have overthrown thus canceling constitutional rights themselves even the right to assemble. This is the logic of insanity!

The distorted views taught by public education’s socialist elite have set the stage for an unquestioned claim that these “occupiers” are our countrymen and equal partakers of the privileges of our Constitution. (22) They are not! We might have a responsibility for helping these misguided souls discover reality, but common assent to established Rule of Law and a common mind toward harmonious ideologies mark the true fellow-citizens of a nation, an understanding clearly understood by Senator Joseph McCarthy. (23)

Our countrymen are vigilant adherents to Rule of Law as revealed in our unadulterated national history, honest, discerners of truth by testing, hard-working contributors, personally responsible for their actions and those under their charge, charitable self-sacrificing givers, community-minded servants, and principled decision-makers based on a solid Foundation of the Religion of Jesus Christ as handed down by our Founders; including Christopher Columbus (23) and the Christian Pilgrims of the Mayflower. (3)

We should engage, entreat, and pray that those set against the Truth will yet be won over to it. In the final analysis, our devotion must remain fixed on the Truth and unencumbered by false notions of brotherhood with the insane — even to the peril of our earthly lives.

* * *

1. http://www.marxist.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/10a.htm
2. http://occupywallst.org
3. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-mayflower-compact/
4. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-declaration-of-independence/
5. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-articles-of-confederation/
6. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-federalist-papers/
7. http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/antifederalist/antifed.htm
8. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america/
9. http://patriotpost.us/document/bill-of-rights-preamble/
10. http://patriotpost.us/document/the-first-ten-amendments-as-ratified/
11. http://patriotpost.us/document/amendments-11-27-to-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/
12. http://www.barefootsworld.net/tm_2000-25.html
13. https://patriotpostshop.com/products/124
14. http://www.thetruthproject.org/
15. https://www.filesanywhere.com/FS/v.aspx?v=8a6d6a8a616676a76e9e
16. http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html
17. http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2011/03/18/a-nation-adrift-economy-and-liberty-and-leftist-incrementalism/
18. http://www.salon.com/2011/06/25/libya_12/
19. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/02/13/lincolns-legacy-at-200/
20. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/10/13/obamas-red-october-uprising/
21. http://www.webster1828.com/
22. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2011/10/19/pitting-us-against-each-other/
23. http://www.senatormccarthy.com/
24. Federer, W. J. (2000). America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotation (pp. 305-306). St. Louis, MO: AMERISEARCH, Inc.

The first one is how white liberals treat good blacks who have stayed on the plantation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/08/occupy_atlanta_silences_civil_rights_hero_john_lewis.html

This next one is how white liberals treat blacks who wandered off the plantation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/06/fireworks_msnbcs_lawrence_odonnell_hostile_interview_with_herman_cain.html

Now, after viewing these two clips, where do these white Marxist liberals ever get away with ever bringing up the word “racist?” These people don’t love black folk. They are only using black people in order to create their social order where all are cattle to the moneyed white elite.

In this piece,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576416284144069702.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Dr. R. Albert Mohler does a good job laying out the problem with the tsunami of the hommosexual agenda that is washing across these united States.

However, I do have some observations on Mohler’s segment below,

(1)”In this most awkward cultural predicament, evangelicals must be excruciatingly clear that we do not speak about the sinfulness of homosexuality as if we have no sin. As a matter of fact, it is precisely because we have come to know ourselves as sinners and of our need for a savior that we have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins….

(2) It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about homosexuality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of homosexuality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.

(3) We have demonstrated our own form of homophobia—not in the way that activists have used that word, but in the sense that we have been afraid to face this issue where it is most difficult . . . face to face.”

A.) In reference to sentence 1 of paragraph #(1)

All sins are equal in our culture today. This is why Dr. Mohler has to write this sentence, and it is why every time a Christian raises his voice against some public square sin the charge of “Hypocrisy” is leveled.

The conversation seems to go something like this,

Christian: “Homosexuality is evil.”

Public Response: “How dare you declaim against homosexuality when you are a sinner as well. We are all sinners and we need to keep that in mind before we go around faulting some people for the sins that are not ours. If we really took our sins seriously we would never speak against another persons sins.”

Yes, we are all sinners. And while all sins separate the one outside of Christ from God not all sins are equal in their malignity. Do we really believe that the sin of stealing a cookie from the cookie jar is the same in malignity as a College professor convincing a classroom that Government theft is righteous?

Yes Christians are sinners. Yes they need the Gospel of forgiveness preached to them because they are sinners. But the fact that Christians are sinners does not mean that Christians therefore can not raise their voice against malignant sins that destroy people and ruin civilizations.

B.) In reference to sentence #3 of paragraph (1),

1.) Mohler gives us a false dichotomy. It is our concern that Homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Jesus Christ that drives our concern that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted. Is Dr. Mohler trying to divide the concern that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Jesus Christ from the concern that homosexuality will become normalized and accepted? I would insist that a love for the Lord Christ and for those living with the burden of homosexuality dictates that both concerns be present as mutually reinforcing truths in the Christian community.

C.) In reference to paragraph #(2)

As a thought experiment imagine paragraph #(2) in 25 years being slightly rewritten from some erstwhile, nationally known Evangelical.

“It is now abundantly clear that evangelicals have failed in so many ways to meet this challenge. We have often spoken about Bestiality in ways that are crude and simplistic. We have failed to take account of how tenaciously sexuality comes to define us as human beings. We have failed to see the challenge of Bestiality as a Gospel issue. We are the ones, after all, who are supposed to know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only remedy for sin, starting with our own.”

I write the above paragraph for shock value. It is my hope that people will realize that the reason that that homosexuality was spoken of in crude and simplistic ways in the past was because people were, once upon a time, as appalled by it as they now are of the thought of coupling with farm animals. Surely we can understand why something this crude was spoken of in a crude and simplistic fashion. I think saying things “crude and simplistically” (Mohler’s phrase) also served to reinforce the taboo against homosexuality. In other words such disapproving shame type speech served the purpose of keeping homosexuality in the closet and away from our children and families. Now we speak all respectfully and with complexity on this issue and so the Homosexual is emboldened by this new found respect and the previous taboo is no longer taboo. Indeed, now we reserve our taboo reinforcing crude and simplistic language for those who believe that homosexuality is a perversion.

Secondly, I agree homosexuals need the Gospel. However, the Gospel begins with, “God is Transcendent and Holy and will not abide with wickedness.” Some would say, and Dr. Mohler is not one of these, that such a message is crude and simplistic.

Without going into all the details, without ever being homosexual I have seen the homosexual lifestyle up close. I have been to the gay bars. I have befriended the homosexual and have had them confide in me. It is a lifestyle of destruction and hatred. If it is cured it is only cured by regeneration accompanying someone compassionate enough to speak of the peril, both temporal and eternal, in which the homosexual finds themselves. The Love of Christ constrains us, with tears in our eyes, to command all men everywhere to repent.

D.) In reference to paragraph #(3)

But this can’t just be dealt with on an individual level, though I agree that it must start there. This has also now become a public policy issue to which Christians and Churches must speak. The Homosexual agenda is flooding our schools, it is now on the verge of normalizing homosexual “marriage.” It is an agenda that is anti-Christ to its core and is committed to perpetuating its strength through recruitment. We must shepherd the individual Christian homosexual who has this as a besetting sin they loathe but we also must speak publicly against the theology out of which homosexuality prospers — a Theology that hurts people that are created in the image of God.

Piper’s piece

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/my-eyes-shed-streams-of-tears-thoughts-on-the-new-calamity

is actually pretty good right up until he shows his historical Baptist skirt by saying that,

“My main reason for writing is not to mount a political counter-assault. I don’t think that is the calling of the church as such …”

Later he writes again,

“This is what I am writing for. Not political action, but love for the name of God and compassion for the city of destruction.”

A few observations about Dr. Piper’s statement,

1.) A lack of political action is a sign of a lack of love to God. Should the Church remain silent concerning the Public Square as a sign of love to God? This is preposterous. The Love of God constrains us to not only weep for the wicked but also to show compassion by championing the second use of the law in order to show compassion to the wicked by setting a legal bulwark against their inflamed wicked passions. This bulwark should not only include a legal code against homosexual sexual acts but a legal code against heterosexual sexual acts outside of marriage.

If people were gathering to celebrate the institutionalization of anti-Jew laws would Piper still go out of his way to say he is not writing to mount a political campaign and that such is not the calling of the Church as such?

Why should the Church be any more mute regarding a call to political action against institutionalizing homosexual deviancy then it would be mute regarding a call to political action against anti-Jew laws?

It is all so contradictory.

2.) There is a false dichotomy in Piper’s writing. He seems to imply that weeping over the city of destruction can only be done if we also don’t respond with some kind of political action.

3.) This sentimental piety that has us weeping like little girls instead of fighting like Charles Martel is going to get all us ruddy well killed. I don’t mind weeping over the lost as long as I can fight to make sure the pagan doesn’t pull my house down along with his own.