Category: FREEDOM’S CRY

Je Suis Bret McAtee

The best way to return volley when dealing with satirists, mockers, and the irreverent is to give them a taste of their own medicine. All the West is taking up for the filth put out by French magazine “Charlie Hebdo” and in favor of  their gutter freedom of speech. This is a freedom of speech that found Charlie Hebdo satirizing the members of the Trinity as engaging in sodomite sex with one another simultaneously.

Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are going to mock and satirize Christianity then mocking and satirizing the sacred truths of the secular religion if also fair game. The most sacred truth of the Cultural Marxist Left today is the Holocaust ™. It is an event that dare not be questioned lest one be imprisoned for merely questioning the facts around the Holocaust ™.

Isn’t it curious that while blaspheming the Lord Jesus Christ is a Free speech matter, and insulting the pervert Mohammed is a free speech right, what isn’t a free speech matter is denying the holocaust? I wonder why that is?

So, if we really are going to march for freedom of speech then let it be a march for freedom of all speech. But that will never happen because all cultures and social orders protect via the fence of the law, what is held sacred that culture and social order.

The mocking limericks that follow are here to make a singular point and that point is to eliminate the double standard.

The Double Standard

Trying to get this all straight
Questioning Six Million is hate
But one is perfectly free
To pen the Trinity
As sodomite sexual soul-mates?

It Goes Both Ways

They tell me that the satire pen
Must be free to lampoon all men
But if that is quite true
Then what will they do
When Auschwitz is mocked now and then?

Now Who’s Ox Is Being Gored?

Satire Mohammed as you please
Cartoon the Trinity as in sleaze
But if you do all of that
There is tit for tat
Prepare for jokes about the Holo-hoax disease

Jes Suis Zundel & Irving?

There once were satirists from France
All religions they’d love to lance
But if this is the game
Then others look tame
Give Zundel and Irving a chance

 

When Are We Going To Start Refusing to Obey Illegal Laws?

The death of Eric Garner at the hands of Staten Island Cops is a good example of somebody not knowing when it is right to disobey orders. The Cops were ordered by their superiors (who were ordered by their superiors) to do something about Garner and his selling of individual cigarettes. As that order ran downhill people at several levels missed the opportunity to tell their superior giving that ridiculous order that the superior could go “beggar themselves,” because they were not going to obey a illegitimate order to arrest a guy simply because he was horning in on the Mafia State’s piece of the action. The State, via that illegitimate and confiscatory Tax law, was running a protection racket and Eric Garner got in the way of their profits and so like all protection racket “businesses” the Cop thugs, following the orders of the Statist Mafia Dons, took Garner down.

One thing one learns when working for Corporate America is that “you don’t touch the money.” Eric Garner was touching the money of the State by selling individual cigarettes (Loosies) and so the Statist Government Mafia, “made an example of him.” Think about it … how many people do you suppose will be selling Loosies in light of what happened to Garner? Everyone knows now that in NYC you can kill your unborn babies, you can purchase your high brow hookers, you can libel in the News Studios that dot New York, all with relative safety, but don’t you dare get caught selling Loosies or it could be your life.

Every legislator in the State of New York who voted to put an confiscatory sin tax on cigarettes in the State of New York, by all that is just, ought also to be charged with involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner. Why only see the Cops fingerprints on this? Why not hold accountable the Statist Politicians and bureaucrats who pass and enforce the kind of dumb-ass laws that eventually find Cops choking to death people for selling single cigarettes? Eric Garner was murdered by Statists. The Cops were merely the executioners employed to that end.

Somebody along the chain of command should have stood up and said to whatever link in the chain that was passing on the order, “This is a illegitimate order and I’m not enforcing it.”

Disobedience to Tyrants is obedience to God.

Obama’s NSA Speech … Welcome To The Burgeoning Police State

“It is therefore, because of ‘the deep deprivation’ of man’s nature due to original sin, most wholesome for magistrates and officers in church and commonwealth never to affect more liberty and authority than will do them good: for whatever transcendent power is given will certainly overrun those that give it and those that receive it. There is a strain in a man’s heart that will sometime or other run out to excess, unless, the Lord restrain it; but it is not good to venture it. It is necessary, therefore, that all power that is on earth be limited, church-power or other.”

John Cotton (1584-1652)
“Limitation on Government”
Quoted in “The Journal of Christian Reconstruction” Vol.III No.1

In light of Obama’s speech yesterday wherein he defended NSA mega spying and compared the NSA spying on Americans, per the collection of some 200 million text messages per day, to Paul Revere and the Sons of Liberty lads spying on British troop movements we need to remember the words of John Cotton. Obama, in essence, insisted that Americans should calm down over NSA spying since, after all, “NSA Agents Are ‘Our Neighbors and Friends’…” John Cotton on the other hand reminds us, in his own words, ‘that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Americans and Obama together need to keep in mind that once upon a time the men who comprised spy organizations like the NKVD, Gestapo, the Stasi, GRU and the Cheka were also just neighbors and friends to those that they spied upon. Police States are started by neighbors and friends spying on one another as sanctioned by despots, usurpers, and tyrannical heads of State.

The fourth amendment is supposed to mean something,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Obama’s proposals continue to allow surveillance of Americans without requiring a Fourth Amendment determination of probable cause. As such, Obama continues to act in a high handed and unconstitutional manner. Obama promises he will implement safeguards against potential abuses but such promises are akin to Messr. Fox promising to implement safeguards to make sure the Hen-house will be safe. The Founders, in the 4th amendment, created the only safeguard we need. It would be nice if our current Tyrant in chief would be ruled by it.

With Obama’s Speech on the Police State you can write it down that we now live in a archipelago of oppression. The FEDS now effectively have a choke point on individual citizens whenever they desire to access it. What we are living through is a soft oppression whereby we are suffocated into silence by a Federal tyrannical apparatus that can turn on any citizen whenever it has need to do so.

According to former NSA official Bill Binney, who served 32 years as a spook,

“All of the information gained by the NSA through spying is then shared with federal, state and local agencies, and they are using that information to prosecute petty crimes such as drugs and taxes. The agencies are instructed to intentionally “launder” the information gained through spying, i.e. to pretend that they got the information in a more legitimate way … and to hide that from defense attorneys and judges.”

We should listen to John Cotton and rise up and constrain the transcendent Federal power for it certainly has overrun those who gave it, its power.

A Christian Defense Of Civilization And A Summons To Battle

Speech of Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos

Constantine XI was the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He fought to defend his empire, his people, and his religion from the invading Turks. Constantine led the Byzantine forces himself during the Fall of Constantinople. He died, as a soldier, on the battlefield on 29 May 1453 at the hands of the Turks, and Constantinople has been lost ever since. This was his final speech he delivered to his men before his death:

“Gentlemen, illustrious captains of the army, and our most Christian comrades in arms: we now see the hour of battle approaching. I have therefore elected to assemble you here to make it clear that you must stand together with firmer resolution than ever. You have always fought with glory against the enemies of Christ. Now the defence of your fatherland and of the city known the world over, which the infidel and evil Turks have been besieging for two and fifty days, is committed to your lofty spirits.

Be not afraid because its walls have been worn down by the enemy’s battering. For your strength lies in the protection of God and you must show it with your arms quivering and your swords brandished against the enemy. I know that this undisciplined mob will, as is their custom, rush upon you with loud cries and ceaseless volleys of arrows. These will do you no bodily harm, for I see that you are well covered in armour. They will strike the walls, our breastplates and our shields. So do not imitate the Romans who, when the Carthaginians went into battle against them, allowed their cavalry to be terrified by the fearsome sight and sound of elephants.

In this battle you must stand firm and have no fear, no thought of flight, but be inspired to resist with ever more herculean strength. Animals may run away from animals. But you are men, men of stout heart, and you will hold at bay these dumb brutes, thrusting your spears and swords into them, so that they will know that they are fighting not against their own kind but against the masters of animals.

You are aware that the impious and infidel enemy has disturbed the peace unjustly. He has violated the oath and treaty that he made with us; he has slaughtered our farmers at harvest time; he has erected a fortress on the Propontis as it were to devour the Christians; he has encircled Galata under a pretence of peace.

Now he threatens to capture the city of Constantine the Great, your fatherland, the place of ready refuge for all Christians, the guardian of all Greeks, and to profane its holy shrines of God by turning them into stables for fits horses. Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands.

You men of Genoa, men of courage and famous for your infinite victories, you who have always protected this city, your mother, in many a conflict with the Turks, show now your prowess and your aggressive spirit toward them with manly vigour.

You men of Venice, most valiant heroes, whose swords have many a time made Turkish blood to flow and who in our time have sent so many ships, so many infidel souls to the depths under the command of Loredano, the most excellent captain of our fleet, you who have adorned this city as if it were your own with fine, outstanding men, lift high your spirits now for battle.

You, my comrades in arms, obey the commands of your leaders in the knowledge that this is the day of your glory — a day on which, if you shed but a drop of blood, you will win for yourselves crowns of martyrdom and eternal fame.”

Constantine XI Palaiologos
Last Emperor of the Byzantine Empire

Dr. Piper Fires Blanks

    “And therefore, as a man is his brother’s murderer, who, with froward Cain, will not be his brother’s keeper, and may preserve his brother’s life, without loss of his own life… so, when he may preserve his own life, and doth not that which nature’s law alloweth him to to do, (rather to kill ere he be killed,) he is guilty of self-murder, because he is deficient in the duty of lawful self-defence.”

-Samuel Rutherford, p. 157 (Lex, Rex)

John Piper citing a question that was sent into him,

“You recently said, ‘you wish people wouldn’t buy a gun with their economic stimulus checks.’ This sounded to some like you’re a strict pacifist who’d rather avoid confrontation with an intruder than protect his family. Would you respond to this.”

Dr. Piper answers,

The context of my comment was that the missionaries in 1956 who were martyred in Ecuador—Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Roger Youdarian, and Peter Fleming—were all speared to death, but they had guns. (This came out through research, and I saw it in a documentary.) And they shot their guns in the air as the spears were going through their chests. They could’ve saved their lives by just shooting horizontally, but they didn’t. They shot in the air because they decided earlier that they were ready to go to heaven but these natives were not. So why would they kill them rather than being killed themselves?

In relation to that, our Supreme Court just declared that the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes not just the right of a militia to bear arms, but the right of a person to have a firearm in his house.

And as I contemplated those two events—the missionaries’ decision and new decision of the Supreme Court—I thought, “If somebody enters my house as a thief, he probably is not ready to go to heaven either.” So then I just ended the blog with, “I hope you don’t use your economic stimulus check to buy a gun.”

I’ve never had one. I’ve never owned a firearm. I had a pellet rifle when I was little and I killed squirrels. But I’m sort of ashamed of the way I killed squirrels, because I didn’t eat them or do anything with them. I just felt it was cool, and I don’t think that’s a very wholesome thing.

No, I am not a pacifist. I am not a pacifist principally, and I’m not a pacifist actively.

Somebody wrote and asked me, “Would you protect your daughter if you had a gun?” I wrote back a one-word answer, “Probably,” and what I meant by it was that the circumstances are so unpredictable. What would you do? Shoot the guy in the head? Or shoot him in the chest? How about the leg? Or just throw the gun at him, or hit him over the head with it? Of course I’m going to protect my daughter! But I’m not aiming to kill anybody, especially an intruder who doesn’t know Christ and would go straight to hell, probably. Why would I want to do that if I could avoid it?

So no, I’m not a pacifist. I believe there should be a militia, and I believe in policemen with billy clubs and guns who should take out guys who are killing people. And I believe in a military to protect a land from aggression. And I believe that fathers should protect their children, even using force. But if they can avoid killing somebody, of course they should avoid killing somebody. And having a gun is a good way not to avoid killing somebody.

We don’t need guns in our houses.

And I’m not against hunters. Don’t get on my case about that, saying that Piper doesn’t believe that you can have bows and arrows and rifles, etc.

And I’m not going to get in your face if you have a gun lying in your drawer. I just think it’s not very wise.

Those who live by the gun will die by the gun.

Bret responds,

Really this is a bit of confusing mish mash. But what I think Dr. Piper is saying is,

1.) “I wouldn’t shoot to kill someone in defense of self and family because said assailant might not be ready to go to heaven and I would thus be responsible for sending someone to hell.”

If that is what he is saying one wonders how a Reformed minister of his stature could ever believe he could send someone to hell before God was able to get them ready to go to heaven?

I know there are many times when God sees a person die and says to Himself, “To late again … and here I was going to get that person saved for heaven next week.”

2.) Here is Dr. Piper’s question as put in the mouths of the Martyred Missionaries, and then as seemingly leveraged for a sort of pacifistic disposition when it comes to self defense, “So why would they kill them rather than being killed themselves?

Here is my answer to that question

a.) Because the Scripture gives me license for self-defense,

Exodus 22:2-3 teaches “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”

One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. During the day, presumably because we can recognize and later apprehend the thief if he escapes, we are not to kill him in non life-threatening circumstances.

In Proverbs 25:26 we read that “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.”

Dr. Piper seemingly would have us faltering before the wicked by not being armed.

b.) Because God has called me to be a good steward of all that He has given me and the most precious gifts that God has given us is our family and our lives. To throw our lives away because the wicked are not ready for Heaven is to violate the call to be good stewards.

c.) Love for others requires me to protect the judicially innocent from those wicked who would do harm. It is not love for the judicially innocent for me to be so pious that I allow harm to the judicially innocent because I was too pious to squeeze off a round in order to demonstrate my love to them.

3.) Dr. Piper claims he is not a pacifist but much of his counsel comes across as pacifistic. True, the answer is full of contradictions that can be read both ways but he ends his answer by warning against owning a weapon. (“And having a gun is a good way not to avoid killing somebody.”)

4.) Dr. Piper’s statement, “We don’t need guns in our houses,” belies a serious misunderstanding of necessity of self defense, a serious misunderstanding of the average response time of the Police to a distress call, and a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

5.) We applaud Dr. Piper for his thoughtful counsel regarding avoidance of taking life it at all possible. However, we should keep in mind that a home invasion crisis, that includes a potential threat to life, often does not allow for easily determining the intent of the aggressor. As such, often it may not be possible to avoid taking life, and in point of fact, to much concern for the life of the aggressor might translate into not enough concern for the lives of those of the family being protected.

6.) One wonders if Dr. Piper is operating from a kind of Big Brother mindset. Note that in his list of people who should have guns he lists all the organs of the State (Militia, Police, and Military). Again, one wonders why those people are more qualified to have tools of protection where individuals are warned off against tools of protection. What makes Big Brother a better candidate for tools of protection as opposed to John Q. Public?

7.) Are we to understand that the warning in Scripture that “those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword” was meant to include those who use weapons according to a Biblical standard? When Dr. Piper says, “those who live by the gun shall die by the gun,” are we to understand that Dr. Piper is including those who use a gun to rescue their wife and children as under that curse?

8.) In the final analysis Dr. Piper’s advice on this matter is unreasonable, uninformed, and what’s worse … unbiblical.