Blog

Taking Sides: The Christian's Responsibility in Civic Affairs II

0

This is the second in a series of essays on the duty of Christians in civic affairs, adapted from Kevin Kookogey’s weekly radio address and podcasts at www.advancingchurch.com

This week we begin our examination of questions from listeners.

  1. Christians should be informed about politics, but should they really determine which political side is correct?

How can one claim that it is important for Christians to be informed about politics if the conclusion one draws from the information is deemed irrelevant or off limits?  It is, after all, conclusions that lead one to act, and to act is to take sides.

We are not just watching a movie or playing a game here. It defies human reason to suggest that we inform ourselves about political matters without taking sides. It would be like telling someone it is important to read recipes but not make meals; to look at menus without ordering food; or to chew but not swallow.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The belief that our deepest convictions should not inform our political views is a manifestation of the endless effort to separate consequences from ideas. Yet politics are merely a practical means of implementing a body of beliefs about the human condition. And since our views about the human condition are informed by our religious beliefs, it is entirely appropriate for our Christian faith to inform our political views and lead us to decisions.

The suggestion that we not advise which side is correct presupposes the possibility of neutrality. But claiming neutrality on political issues is akin to saying one has no worldview – no beliefs – on political issues.  Is not the demand that we discuss the importance of politics while insisting on neutrality really just an attempt to silence opinions that differ from our own, or to avoid being put in the uncomfortable position of having to make one’s views known?

Neutrality is a myth.  If I claim moral relativism, for example, that there is no absolute truth, my claim presupposes that what I believe to be true (i.e., no objective moral standard) is more true, or closer to the real truth, than what you might believe (absolute truth).  In doing so, I am not neutral. I am taking sides, attempting to distinguish my beliefs from yours, which only makes sense if there is a standard beyond or outside of your beliefs and mine against which we can measure or compare the truth of our beliefs.

Scripture does not celebrate neutrality.  Indeed, Jesus had some harsh words for the lukewarm. We’re unlikely to be excused by failing or refusing to take a stand on issues, including political ones.

  1.  Is America a Christian Nation? Did our Founding Fathers intend to establish a Christian nation?

This line of inquiry is often used to suck unsuspecting Christians into a debate regarding Thomas Jefferson’s Bible, what George Washington or Ben Franklin meant between the lines of their writings, or the various proofs of which founders were Christians, which were deists, and who might have been an atheist.

Indeed, scholars have devoted volumes to those details.  The question, however, is not so much whether America was founded as a Christian nation. Christian, after all, is a personal rather than a national identifier, associated with one’s beliefs about Jesus Christ. And while many of our founders were Christians, and while it is an undisputed historical fact that the American colonies were established, nurtured, and governed according to a moral order that was unapologetically rooted in Biblical principals for 150 years prior to our political separation from England in 1776, to focus on those particulars misses the point.

The subject hinges on understanding what our founders – those who drafted our founding documents and implemented our governing philosophy – believed about the nature of man and the duty of government.  It is without question that our founders understood that absent a moral order – that is, order in the soul – there could be no order in the community.  It was the permanent problems of the human condition that led our founders to structure an enduring Constitution, whereby men’s tendencies to fraud, violence, ambition, and avarice could be restrained, without unduly limiting the liberties of the people.

These views were informed by the religious beliefs of our founders, many of whom were Christians, and all of whom acknowledged that Rights come from God, and that the role of government is limited to securing those God-given rights, as so plainly described in our Declaration of Independence.

  1. How can Politics serve the Kingdom of God?

The answer lies not so much in explaining how politics can serve the Kingdom of God as in demonstrating that political power unchecked by the Church will always devolve into tyranny.

Regrettably, the American Church is in retreat, conforming to the culture and cooperating with the State, sometimes unwittingly, at the expense of our liberties and to the detriment of the entire social civil order.

While some of this can be explained by ignorance, most of it is driven by fear.  Fear of conflict.  Fear of discomfort. Fear of persecution.  Yet succumbing to fear is the surest way for the enemies of truth to prevail.  And if we refuse to debate eternal truths in the political arena, is there any question whose agenda will be imposed?

Our duty is to preserve knowledge of God, a charge that necessarily puts us at odds with the world.  Yet Jesus promised that we would encounter conflict, opposition, and even death as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission.  This is why Christ told his disciples that He was sending them like sheep among wolves, and that they would be persecuted and hated by everyone because of Him.

There is no avoiding it. The entire Bible is an account of God’s people confronting kings, powers, rulers, and governments.  Jesus promises that we will be brought before governors and kings, on His account, as witnesses to them and to other unbelievers.

Yet retreat is not an option. Jesus told Peter that He would build His church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. Because gates are defensive mechanisms, the implications of Christ’s words are clear:

The kingdom of God is on the advance, invading all of life, including the political arena.  It is not, then, a question of whether one should engage in politics. Politics, as we have explained, touches everyone.

The only question is whose side are we on?

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

EgyptAir MS804 Flight Attendant posted Picture on Facebook of Plane crashing a year before She Died

0

What flight attendant posts a picture of a plane crashing after she getting a job with the airline?

“EgyptAir flight attendant posted picture on Facebook of plane crashing a year before she died in flight MS804,” By Robert Spencer, May 22, 2016:

What a coincidence. Might Samar Ezz Eldin have been part of a jihad cell that worked to take down the plane? The possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand.

samar-ezz-eldin

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“EgyptAir cabin crew posted picture of plane crashing on Facebook year before tragic flight MS804,” by Simon Robb, Metro.co.uk, May 20, 2016:

A flight attendant on the tragic EgyptAir flight MS804 had posted a picture of a plane crashing, months after she got a job with the airline.

Samar Ezz Eldin, 27, uploaded the haunting image onto Facebook back in September 2014.

It shows a female flight attendant in wet clothes pulling a suitcase out of the water as a plane plunges into the sea behind her.

Eldin, who studied modern languages in Cairo, was among the first victims to be named of the Airbus A320.

The flight was en route from Paris to Cairo with 66 passengers and crew when it vanished on Thursday….

Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller.

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Blue Angels Marine Pilot Capt. Jeff Kuss Could Have Ejected Once He Knew His Plane Was Going To Crash…But He Didn’t

0

Jeff Kuss appeared to have stayed with the plane because it was over a heavily populated residential area in Smryna, Tennessee, and he wanted to make sure the plane crashed away from the homes. He is a real American hero. God bless his soul.

38267798blue-angels2

Article reposted with permission from Shoebat.com

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Man Jailed After Claiming to be ‘Transgender’ to Assault Women in Shelter

0

A biological man, Christopher Hambrook, claimed to be ‘transgender’ in order to prey on women at two Toronto shelters. He was recently jailed “indefinitely” after a judge declared him to be a “dangerous offender.”

The Toronto Sun reports that Hambrook, a man, who called himself “Jessica,” entered women’s shelters and sexually assaulted several women in 2012. He served four years in jail in Montreal for a 2002 sexual assault of a five-year-old girl, and for raping a mentally challenged 27-year-old woman while on bail for the first crime.

This is exactly what gender rational people have been arguing: allowing men into women’s bathrooms poses dangers to women and girls. It’s irrational, irresponsible, and gives predators free access to prey on the innocent.

This is the consequence of allowing transgender, perverted, predatory heterosexual pedophiles access to be around women and girls:

  • Court documents reveal that one woman awoke to find Hambrook assaulting her on her bed.

“Her tights had been pulled down past her bottom and her bathing suit had been pulled to the side. She yelled at the accused, demanding to know what he was doing. He simply covered his face with his hands, said ‘Oops!’ and started giggling.”

  • Evidence was also presented of Hambrook terrorizing a deaf woman living in the shelter. “The accused grabbed the complainant’s hand and forcibly placed it on his crotch area while his penis was erect.” She also reported that Hambrook peered through a gap between the door and its frame to watch her while she showered.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Toronto Sun reports that Hambrook was a former stripper and escort. The Ontario, Canadian government, recently amended its Human Rights Code to include “gender identity” and “gender expression” as grounds for discrimination in 2012.

The bill’s sponsors said the law enable “social change” in Canada. Yet, is allowing sexual assault the social change Canada was seeking?

Canada Family Action president, Brian Rushfeldt, told LifeSiteNews that Hambrook’s method to enter women’s shelters proves that the “gender identity legislation is inherently flawed.” He added,

“The Ontario law is dangerous. It is unacceptable that any country would allow a law which puts citizens at risk. It proves the law was ill planned and executed, and the government should be held legally responsible for these crimes.”

Jack Fonseca, of Campaign Life Coalition, told LifeSiteNews: it “didn’t take a brain surgeon to predict that letting men into women’s bathrooms and other private spaces would eventually lead to sexual assaults.

“I wish we didn’t have to say ‘I told you so,’ but Ontario’s party leaders and MPPs were warned that the transsexual ‘Bathroom Bill’ endangered women and needed to be defeated.”

Gender rational people warned that this would happen, and it did. 

What is the legislature trying to achieve? 

Why is the first instance of a transgender pervert using a woman’s shelter and bathroom one that leads to sexual assault of women? 

Does no one care about women’s safety anymore?

Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Trump: Democrats Against North Korea Summit Just Like They Defend MS-13 & Attack Tax Cuts

0

President Donald Trump sent out a sharply worded tweet against Democrats, accusing them of cheering his administration’s failure with North Korea.

He’s got a point.

Democrats are so obviously rooting against us in our negotiations with North Korea. Just like they are coming to the defense of MS 13 thugs, saying that they are individuals & must be nurtured, or asking to end your big Tax Cuts & raise your taxes instead. Dems have lost touch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2018

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Democrats want it both ways. First, they criticize and condemn the president for his diplomatic dealings with North Korea and Kim Jong Un. Then they criticize and condemn when his diplomacy is snubbed and North Korea scorns the summit.

What do they want?

Here’s the real deal: Dems don’t care so much about stabilizing U.S. relations with North Korea as they do about using North Korea as a platform to politically destroy this White House.

From the Daily Caller:

President Donald Trump hit back at his Democratic critics for allegedly cheering on his cancellation of a summit between himself and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.

Trump [in his tweet] appears to be referencing comments by Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi who remarked that the president’s letter read “kind of like a Valentine” and “when you got this letter from the president saying, ‘okay, never mind,’ [Kim Jong Un] must be having a giggle fit right there now in North Korea.”

Pelosi also defended MS-13 gang criminals recently and derided Republican-led tax cut legislation as “crumbs.”

Trump canceled the summit in a Thursday letter saying, “Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting.”

Trump noted that he still hopes to meet Kim Jong-Un at some point if their regime agrees to the terms set out by the U.S. and said if he changes his mind that they should not hesitate to reach out. The president thanked the North Koreans for releasing three U.S. hostages detained by the regime under false pretenses.

Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Democrats – Liberals & Progressives Aren't Very Nice People

0

Every day, I watch the news on television or turn-on my computer to check my news feed, and every day, I see some new fascist move that the so called “tolerant and enlightened” members of our society are doing. Whether it’s spreading misinformation or out-right lies, or even inciting violence against those that don’t share their beliefs, the left-wing has shown us in no uncertain terms that they are ANYTHING but “tolerant” and “enlightened.” In fact, they are the most bigoted and selfish people in our society today. If you don’t believe what they believe, well, you’re just a sloped forehead, knuckle-dragging, right-wing, gun-loving, bible-thumping, in-breeder and you don’t have the right to express your opinions.

Wow….so much for “tolerance” eh ?

Sound pretty narrow-minded if you ask me. To be “open minded” means to be open to new ideas, and to be “tolerant” is to be accepting of all people…no matter if they do not share your beliefs. The Democrats, liberals, and progressives in our society today are some of the most closed-minded, bigoted, and selfish people walking on the earth today. They “think” (“think” being the key word here) they are of a superior intelligence, and that gives them the right to condemn anyone or any group that does not think and believe exactly what they think and believe. Wowee…how arrogant and narrow minded is THAT ?

Here’s a newsflash…the democratic party that exists in America today is Communist in all but name. Time and time again, they prove that, by telling the rest of us what we should and shouldn’t do. They believe that the rights of men come from the state and NOT from God. Our Forefathers believed just the opposite, that our rights come from our Creator and NOT from men.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

So the next time some liberal, progressive, or democrat tells you that you don’t have the right to speak your mind or that you don’t have the right to defend yourself, your family, or your property, it says everything you should know about them and just what they believe. If it were up to them, they would make make “free speech” into “hate speech,” and as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, they would do away with that altogether because you right-wing bible-thumper’s shouldn’t be able to even own firearms….only the “state” should have that right.

Every time the state controls speech and is the only entity to have firearms, people die – and not just a couple of hundred people die….tens of MILLIONS die….look it up Red China, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, had all a the guns and MILLIONS were killed by the state…and all for the greater good of the body politic.

This up-coming presidential election will determine the fate of this nation. On one side, we have the Socialist/Communist faction and on the other…Freedom. It should be a no-brainer…but someone needs to tell these millennials that, as they seems a bit confused as to what the difference is.

Parents….teach your children well because if you don’t, this nation is lost.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Killing Us With Our Own Rules: Means and Ends Moralists Part Two

0

One of Alinsky’s most effective strategy’s, one that we see play out daily, can be found in the chapter entitled Tactics. This chapter highlights twelve rules of tactics, and one of them sticks out because it encourages those pushing for social change to use our own rules against us in a way that discredits everything we do.

“The fourth rule of tactics is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian Church can live up to Christianity.” (Alinsky, 1971)

What this comes down to in its most basic elements is that the left doesn’t believe that men can be free and self-governing, and that the system that allegedly believes in “justice for all” has failed. In order then, to re-organize society to their liking they must use our system against us to show that it has been a massive failure. This is akin to the discussion on means and ends morality because what they seek to do is use our morals against us in a way that makes us appear hypocritical in our most fundamental beliefs. They employ this to destroy the constitution as well as the Christian religion.

One of the best examples to point to is the mainstream media. One would think that after the constant exposure as liars and partisan hacks, along with the massive ratings drop that they would wake up and see the light. What if their agenda goes beyond simply being partisan hacks for the Democrat party? What if their purpose is to completely discredit the first amendment to the constitution by deliberately lying and hiding behind it? If this was the case, eventually people would come to see the first amendment as something that enables people to lie cheat and steal as opposed to using it for its intended purpose, which is to hold government accountable and seek truth. This would be another application of the Hegelian Dialectic discussed earlier. Create the problem so that the people demand a solution, thus ensuring the consent of the governed. In some instances, this has already proven to be the case when it comes to the issue of regulating the internet. Earlier this year we saw the issue of censorship on social media. Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube have all been found to be targeting conservative views and censoring them through a change in their algorithms. This has resulted in far less people being able to access conservative sites. In fact, it led to a dramatic reduction in traffic to conservative based sites, which included sites dealing with political campaigns. Sites dealing with liberal issues or Democrat candidates saw no reduction in their traffic.[1]
“President Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts dropped 45 percent. In contrast, potential left-wing presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) did not see drops. Fox News had a drop of 26 percent in its Facebook engagement, whereas CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post saw virtually no change. The only left-leaning sites that appear to be affected were clickbait sites.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Right Wing News, which has over a million fans on its page, saw such a decrease in traffic that owner John Hawkins said it was no longer profitable to keep running. He shut down the page and site (it’s still online but is not updated). IJ Review, another popular site on the right that got much of its traffic from Facebook, was forced into layoffs last week. Three other sites are depending heavily on Facebook. Young Cons, Western Journalism and Sarah Palin, saw huge decreases in website traffic in January. Some sites had to switch domain names to survive. Western Journalism renamed its domain Western Journal. Even the most popular sites on the right were affected, like Breitbart.” (Alexander, 2018)

Another tactic being employed by social media giants was the re-direction from conservative based sites to liberal ones like the associated press. According to Alexander, an article published by The Gateway Pundit featuring a pro-second amendment position by the father of two Parkland shooting survivors was flagged and re-directed in this manner. What we are witnessing is an all-out attempt to control the public’s perception of reality and what they believe. Could there be another agenda? The conservative reaction to this was to demand that the government get involved and regulate the internet to ensure everyone’s viewpoint is heard equally.[2]They are effectively using the first amendment against us in ways that could have probably never been imagined. Some will argue that Facebook, and YouTube, for example, are private entities who themselves have a first amendment right to determine what is appropriate to post on their media platforms. The result however, is the demand from a group that historically has unabashedly argued for unrestricted free speech demanding the government do something. The same is being accomplished through the television media. There is a demand to hold the major, liberal run media organizations accountable for their constant lying and attacks upon conservative beliefs. Essentially, by demanding a government solution we are giving them what they want, power over us.  What they want is a demand to end freedom, a demand to implement government control and a belief that the experiment in individual liberty and natural rights has failed.

“There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” (Alinsky, 1971)

What Alinsky is essentially arguing is that by controlling the system from the inside the conditions of hopelessness can be created, thus leading to a demand for change from the people who created the hopelessness in the first place. In the case of the mainstream, and social media, the goal is to completely eradicate the concept of free speech while hiding behind it. If they can make people believe that the first amendment leads to nothing but lying, and that people’s speech must be controlled, then the work of eliminating free speech from our society is all but completed for them.

The 2017 football season saw the war on free speech rise to new levels as players, in attempt to portray themselves as oppressed victims of American imperialism, took a knee during the Star-Spangled Banner. This tactic enraged and isolated much of the NFL fanbase as ratings took a massive hit; however, the actions of players like Colin Kaepernick were lauded by liberal outlets as heroic and courageous. The left is portraying this as an example of the exercise of free speech while many on-lookers took offense to it. Of course, anything the left takes offense to must immediately become a national televised issue with panels of talking heads telling us to be offended. When the right takes offense to something we are often called bigots and presented as people unwilling to tolerate other people’s worldviews. Here-in lies the brilliance of the tactic of using our own rules against us, how can we claim to support freedom of speech if we don’t tolerate an expression that differs from our own? That is why the left continually wins the narrative. What if the right just learned to collectively ignore the immature antics of the left and let them express themselves without the fan-fare spectacularism pushed by the media? Would any of these tactics ever become mainstream if we didn’t pay attention to them? It is doubtful. In any case, the non-sense is sure to continue into the 2018/2019 football season as the NFL has officially made it their policy that there will be no kneeling during the national anthem while players are on the field.[3] They are free however, to remain in the locker rooms if they choose. The following line from this MSNBC article proves that this is an effort to label conservatives as intolerant and hypocritical.

“The league that wraps themselves in the flag but doesn’t honor the first amendment its showing its true colors.” (Kluwe, 2018)

They are working to portray the NFL, an allegedly patriotic, pro-American organization as unable to live to the values they espouse by not allowing their players to freely express themselves as they should be allowed under the first amendment. In all truth they should let the players take a knee, they look like idiots. Nowhere else in the world can people, no matter their skin color, be paid millions of dollars a year to play a ball game professionally. By taking a knee during the national anthem these players are in a roundabout way, biting the hand that feeds them. They make millions of dollars while the very people fighting to protect their rights to do so make pennies in comparison. This is what angers NFL fans, not they are taking a knee, but that they are ignorant in the reason they are doing so.

This tactic, of employing our rules against us, is employed in almost all aspects of society to make conservative morals look hypocritical. Our constitution states that all men are created equal and that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. What this means of course is that we are all created in the eyes of God with the same rights and we are entitled to equal treatment under natural law. It does not mean that we are all equally capable of achieving the same things. This is the definition that the left has given equality to destroy the constitution and present its writers as selfish elitists.  The left knows that there is no way everyone can be made completely equal; however, they use this as their rallying call against our system claiming that the constitution guarantees equality and that it is a value we hold dear as Americans.

One thing that the Obama Administration was able to do, which is the epitome of this type of strategy, was put in place a rule which allowed the government to waive the ninety-day residency requirements for new immigrants to obtain firearms, this was rule 1140-AA44[4] signed by Eric Holder. This rule virtually allowed an illegal immigrant to come into the country and legally purchase a firearm. Technically, it applied to only immigrants here legally; however, given the fact that several states give illegal immigrants drivers licenses that would enable them to purchase a firearm under this rule.

“Rule 1140-AA44, originally signed by Eric Holder, “would finalize an interim rule published on June 7, 2012 that removes the 90-day state residency requirement for aliens lawfully present in the United States to purchase or acquire a firearm.

Rule 1140-AA05 will “require a firearms purchaser’s affirmative statement of his or her state of residence”–although with states like California, New York and even Georgia providing drivers licenses to illegal aliens, a person could enter the country illegally and then purchase a gun on the same day.

Another rule, 1140-AA08, opens the door for nearly unrestricted importation of firearms and ammunition by non-immigrants, i.e., aliens that are in the country temporarily.

Generally, the importation of firearms or ammunition by non-immigrant aliens is prohibited by law. Yet the exemptions provided by 1140-AA08 would make sidestepping this prohibition as easy as beingadmitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes, or by simply filling out a permit application and affirming that one is not in the country on a non-immigrant visa.”[5]

This was done for discrediting the belief that we are all entitled to equal unalienable rights because conservatives rightfully argue that only citizens of the United States should be entitled to these rights. The left is again portraying the conservative beliefs as being unable to stand up to scrutiny. Conservatives are unable to live up to their values therefore; the constitution is invalid because it isn’t working to ensure equality for all. That is the left’s argument. It isn’t that the conservatives don’t believe that immigrants don’t have rights, they believe there should be a certain amount of assimilation into the culture to understand where those rights are derived from. According to the Washington Times,[6] the Obama administration had also eliminated the required oath of new citizens to be willing to bear arms in defense of the nation, yet they are going to allow them the right to exercise the second amendment? Again, this is being done to turn our system against us and it works perfectly. As long as people are afraid of being labeled as a hypocrite, or accused of not standing up for the values they claim to stand for this tactic will continue to work against us.

Living Up To Our Own Book Of Rules

0

The left has one goal and that is to completely destroy and discredit the conservative movement. They have been working effortlessly, through the universities and other institutions, to create the impression that their morals and values are mainstream. People on the right, espousing conservative viewpoints, are to be ridiculed and cast aside as extremist, hateful bigots who marginalize minorities and women. In too many instances, unfortunately, the so-called right falls for the trap and literally manufactures the rope from which they will later hang. There is no better example of this than the recent Bill O’Reilly situation where it was revealed he paid out millions to settle with those who were accusing him of sexual harassment. Some people would argue against the notion that O’Reilly was, in fact, a conservative; however, in the minds of millions, he was the voice of the conservative movement, who, as of now, has been successfully silenced by the left. After years of dominating the news with his so-called “no spin” approach, O’Reilly has accomplished little more for conservatives than feeding the left wing narrative that conservatives are sexist, chauvinist pigs.

If the right truly wants to win back this country, we must start living up to the values and morals we espouse. There is more than a simple war against conservatism going on: there is an all-out assault on the very nature of truth itself. The left is seeking to change the nature of man and his understanding of natural law. The normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism, the teaching of moral relativism as opposed to moral absolutes and the feminization of the American male are all deliberate attacks against the free will of man designed to destroy God’s creation and remake man in the left’s image. We will never be able to stop the onslaught against our values, as long as the left is able to prove that we cannot live up to them. Remember, this is an Alinsky tactic and every time a prominent conservative figure falls, they prove it to be a successful one.

“Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.)

Essentially, what Alinsky is saying is that it is easy to make conservatives look like hypocrites because, in too many cases, their behavior does not live up to the moral codes they allegedly live by. Rush Limbaugh often discusses this topic. He frequently points out the fact that hypocrisy, while more prevalent on the left than the right, is something that fails to stick to them. What he falls short of explaining clearly is the fact that the left is working from a place where there are no moral absolutes. Christians, as well as right-wing conservatives, wear their values on their sleeve, and we believe that is, in fact, our values and belief system that made this country great. Leftists believe in moral relativism, meaning that there is no universal morality; therefore, they have no morals to live up to, making it difficult to label them as hypocrites. Morality to them, like gender and the Constitution, is fluid and can be changed to meet the situation they are currently in, in order to achieve the results they seek in the moment, and they have no shame in employing this tactic. A recent example is Harry Reid admitting he lied about Mitt Romney’s tax returns and bragging that it cost him the election. In pursuit of the perfect “socialist utopia,” the left believes that sacrificing their own morality is, in fact, the highest level of morality that can be achieved. To further understand this we again, turn to Alinsky.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“In action one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent with both one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of personal salvation; he doesn’t care enough for the people to be corrupted for them.” (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.)

Essentially, the left believes that their socialist utopia is what is best for mankind and that corrupting themselves in order to achieve it is the highest level of morality. This is why you can never slap them with the label of hypocrisy – they simply don’t care. They believe that their compassion, their intentions to do good, far outweigh the actual consequences of their actions. The damage they actually cause is either ignored or viewed as a necessary step in America’s transformation.

There really is no way to fight an enemy who conducts this type of psychological warfare, short of actually living up to the values we espouse. People in the conservative movement have to conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach because around every corner is a social justice warrior seeking to discredit everything we believe in. When people like Bill O’Reilly or others, who, by their own actions, allow themselves to be silenced by the left, bring this type of discredit to conservatism, we have to work twice as hard to prove that the left-wing narrative is incorrect to those sitting on the sidelines. The election of Donald Trump, despite what others claim, was not a victory for conservatism but the perfect example of people being forced to cast a vote because there was no other choice. The war for hearts and minds is still very much alive and there are millions of future voters who are conditioned by the left to go along to get along. We will not win this cultural battle if the mainstream is successfully presenting liberalism as morally superior and conservatives as chauvinistic. We can not allow them to turn us into hypocrites because we cannot live up to our own “book of rules.” We have to start by being the change we want to see.

Article reposted with permission from In Defense of Our Nation

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.

Yes, Everything is Purposeful – And that Shouldn’t necessarily make You Comfortable

0

Yes, everything is purposeful.

And that shouldn’t necessarily make us all comfortable.

It is certainly true that everything – every thought, act, consequence and benefit to ever occur anywhere at any time in God’s creation – is perfectly ordained by Him to accomplish His purposes. There is not, as RC Sproul is known for saying, “one single solitary maverick molecule in all of creation.”

This is a matchless comfort to the supernaturally saved and transformed New Creature in Christ.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But the fact of God’s sovereignty and the purpose of all that happens in His creation can also be the ultimate terror for the unrepentant unbeliever, including many false converts who claim Christ with their lips but have no appetite for His Word in detail and in practice.

When anyone (including ourselves) plays the “God is in control” or “everything has a purpose” card as a way of avoiding pursuit or application of the Nature of God as revealed in His Word on any given subject, they (or we) are demonstrating unbelief. In our apathetic, lazy approach to the revealed Nature of the Lord we claim to love in word, we are demonstrating faithlessness to Him in deed.

This is a big deal.

To help get beyond lazily relaxing in an inappropriate way in the comfort of God’s sovereignty and purpose for all of His creation, let’s look at a very popular partial verse dealing with the good goal behind all things in God’s creation:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good. ~ Romans 8:28a

Now let’s look at the whole verse.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose~ Romans 8:28

So we see that the good work being accomplished by all things is “good” for a very specific group of people. As in: Not necessarily for everyone.

Now let’s include surrounding verses for some essential (and generally unpopular) context:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. ~ Romans 8:28-30

Now let’s add in an even more clarifying (some would say excruciatingly so) related passage from the next chapter, Romans 9:

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is notthe children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Butwho are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?  ~ Romans 9:6-24

Yes, everything and everyone has purpose.

God’s purpose.

Everyone refusing to repent and submit to Christ as King in practice will be perfectly used by Him anyway to accomplish His purpose.

Knowing this truth while refusing to pursue and apply His Nature as revealed in His Word is not a beautiful thing.

It’s a terrifying one.

Article reposted with permission from Fire Breathing Christian.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com. Website

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon to the right of the comment, and report it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation. If you don’t see a commenting section below, please disable your adblocker.

Russian Military Deploys Marines On North Korean Border

0

Following North Korea’s most recent missile launch are the signs of impending war.  Russia has now deployed Marines to the North Korean border.

Russian marines have begun practicing landing operations at its border with North Korea, following Pyongyang’s controversial missile launch test this week, the military said.

Although this is just one of several drills conducted over the past month, more are expected. According to Newsweek, Russian naval infantry servicemen and the crews of Russia’s Pacific Fleet ships Admiral Nevelskoy and Peresvet, carried out a swift, amphibious charge on a beachhead in the Primorye region, Russia’s only one to border North Korea.

The cargo and staff boarded Admiral Nevelskoy at Desantnaya Bay and simulated the landing at the Klerk training range, both of which are in Primorye, Pacific Fleet spokesman Nikolay Voskresenskiy told state-run news agency RIA Novosti.

take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Peresvet made its pickup elsewhere but also arrived in the area near Klerk. -Newsweek

This military drill comes just one day before the Pacific Fleet kicks off a series of training exercises in Primorye and the far more eastern Kamchatka. Those drills will involve around 1,000 troops and over 150 items of equipment.

The drills will also involve live fire exercises.

Russia has effectively practiced bombing near the region, paratrooper landings and other maneuvers since September.

Each drill, declared separately from any previously announced war games, has come alongside escalating exchanges in the war of words between North Korea and the U.S. Russia has insisted that the U.S. must shoulder part of the blame for stirring the North Korean regime into a frenzy and “provoking” further tests with its ongoing defense commitments to nearby Japan and South Korea.

However, Russia has also condemned North Korea’s latest missile launch as well.

Following the launch of their last missile, North Korea claimed that the entire United States is now in the range of one of their missiles.

The latest test, purportedly of the North’s new Hwasong-15 missile, was the first one in the last two months sparking concerns that the regime is on the fast-track to obtain even more powerful, and highly advanced weapons.

Article posted with permission from SHTFPlan

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.