Grilling “Papa Duck”

Phil Robertson unintentionally exposed some very disturbing realities.

More than a month has passed and the hysteria surrounding Phil Robertson's comments in a magazine interview just isn't dying down. There is a multitude of disturbing aspects to this topic that should alarm everyone and they have absolutely nothing to do with what Phil Robertson said.

The lack of reading comprehension is without doubt the most disturbing aspect of this whole fiasco because it's painfully obvious that the majority of individuals and alleged “reporters” alike have placed their ignorance on display. It goes beyond the incorrect and fabricated quotes to the heart of the matter which should scare the crap out of everyone. Many have screamed “freedom of speech” proving they have no understanding of the Bill of Rights which does not not apply to “all” speech and especially not to non-government affairs. How can we expect to defend either the Bill of Rights itself or people living under it if we don't even understand what is written therein?

One has to wonder how Camille Paglia becomes a “University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia” yet lacks the very basic understand that the United States is “representative republic” and not a “democracy” as she is quoted as saying in a Christian Post article¹. In the same article Paglia makes reference to how the “legacy of free speech” has been lost by democratic political party. Why are people not appalled by the fact that Paglia, an alleged “professor”, is among the millions of others who fail to understand even the most basic concepts of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights?

First and foremost, there is an absolute clear distinction between a “democracy” which is “group” sovereignty and a “republic” which protects “individual” sovereignty. There is no mistaking the fact that the United States Constitution clearly protects the rights of the “individual” and not the “group” or “collective”. Most important to this discussion is the fact that the rights of the individual, specifically the “minority individual”, are protected in a republic but not in a democracy. One would think that Ms. Paglia would have acquired this basic constitutional knowledge in a middle-school civics class or at the very least sometime before being assigned the title “professor”.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution contained in what we know as the “Bill of Rights” states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While each of these opens a can of worms for discussion, the intent here is to remain focused upon the underlying claims of “free speech”. Under the First Amendment, Phil Robertson is certainly guaranteed his right to speak in public or private about anything he wishes – however – once Phil has agreed to a private business contract his speech may certainly be limited by the other party to the said contract. This is essentially no different than when one signs a contract with a “non-disclosure” or “industrial espionage” clause, either or both parties of the contract are then bound by the terms of said contract. Whether one chooses to side with Phil or A&E, the fact remains that this is not a constitutional matter, at most it can be a discrepancy of either civil or contract law.

The “Papa Duck” moniker arises from the comparison of Phil Robertson to “Papa Francis” (Pope Francis) in a poorly written “Time Ideas”² commentary that is little more than a blatant display of liberal academia induced ignorance. The author of this most nonsensical article actually has the gall to claim that “Papa Francis” is a trained philosopher who “singlehandedly [sic] saved the church” by issuing the statement: “Who am I to judge?” ... Seriously? How does one even consider making the claim that the Pope “saved the church” by misunderstanding or outright dismissing the very biblical truth upon which the church is to stand?

I suppose it's not really a stretch to consider that the Pope would so easily dismiss scripture since Variety.com³ ran an article stating that over 18,000 Christians signed a petition supporting A&E in suspending Robertson. From a different angle one could easily rephrase the statement to read: “Over 18,000 Christians thumbed their noses at God and would rather see people suffer for eternity in hell than risk temporarily hurting their feelings.”

While most modern Christians fall back upon the segment of scripture “truth in love” they conveniently dispose of the full context surrounding the segment. The fourth chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians provides the necessary context:

14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. Ephesians 4:14-15 (NIV)⁴

It is undeniable that the corruption of liberal academia and political correctness have impacted the Church to the point where Christians en masse reject the Great Commission in favor of being both "in" and "of" the world by choosing a flawed sociopolitical ideology over the Word of God. Ephesians is quite clear that we are not to be deceived by schemes like that of political correctness and tolerance. The truth need not be hateful and presented in love even though it may be painful. It is the deceit of the world that causes corruption of scriptural truth for all the way back in Genesis the serpent schemed by inserting doubt with the question 'Hath God said?' Political correctness and tolerance are the modern schemes of deceit effectually repeating the question 'Hath God said?'

Truth must be first and foremost no matter if one finds it painful or disagreeable. Christians must speak the truth in order to show their love and concern for eternal matters greatly exceed those of temporal feelings.

References

1. http://www.christianpost.com/news/lesbian-activist-blasts-ae-for-suspending-duck-dynasty-patriarch-phil-robertson-111311/

2. http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/#ixzz2nx2BjASC

3. http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-gq-ae-1200981032/

4. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204&version=NIV;NASB

Insights From ... Vladimir Putin?
The decay of morals, society and national suicide.

Arguably there are vast differences between Vladimir Putin's sociopolitical ideals and those rooted in liberty but Putin is the only player on the world stage speaking about certain sociopolitical truths that are necessary to maintain a sustainable society and nation. Likely you have not heard hide nor hair of this because European and Western media systematical omit anything that does not pass through the liberal-socialist filter disguised as “political-correctness”.

Since the early 2000s Russian leftists have labeled Putin as being “anti-globalization” but in reality Putin is for “limited-globalization” and his beliefs in this matter are sound national policy for any country to follow. For clarity purposes it is important to note that the definition, scope and purpose of “globalization” has changed considerably since the term was coined in the 1950s. The original definition of globalization meant allowing more open trade between countries for the purposes of growing the national economy through its domestic manufacturing base. As years passed, the term “globalization” was slowly corrupted but the major turning point came in the 1990s when the Clinton administration signed NAFTA into law. While the consequences of NAFTA can fill volumes, for now it suffices to state that NAFTA essentially chopped the self-sustainability of the American manufacturing base as well as consumer choice off at the knees. With that in mind, Putin's assessment of the corrupted model of modern globalization is very much correct on the four primary points:

1. Loss of national sovereignty by compromising political authority to the collective.
   
2. Destruction of an independent manufacturing base through excessive outsourcing.
   
3. Decomposition of a national identity through the adoption of multiculturalism and European socialism.
   
4. Destabilization of the national economy by allowing internal markets to become subject to the fluidity of global markets and events.
   

The Left in Russia and the United States alike constantly point to European socialist hubs as “progressive centers of enlightened humanity”. Russian Leftists have launched a full-out assault on Putin's insistence on maintaining a national identity and promoting the basic moral code as “parochial narrow-mindedness”. Likewise, the parallel can be seen in the United States as Leftists and Progressives have raised their assaults on basic moral values and freedom to blitzkrieg levels.

Responding to the question, “Why is it so important for you to criticise [sic] Western values?” posed by a CNN reporter in his annual news conference on December 19, 2013 Vladimir Putin said,

“The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism is just a pathetic copy of the Bible. This code has passed on, it does not exist any more. A new generation of Russian citizens, young people don’t even know what it is. But the only thing that can replace it is those traditional values (religion and moral values) that you mentioned. Society falls apart without these values. Clearly, we must come back to them, understand their importance and move forward on the basis of these values.”

Changing only the words appearing in italics, Putin's reply to the CNN reporter's question would read as follows:

“The Moral Code of the Founding Fathers is just a mirror copy of the Bible. This code has passed on, it does not exist any more. A new generation of American citizens, young people don’t even know what it is. But the only thing that can replace it is those traditional values (religion and moral values) that you mentioned. Society falls apart without these values. Clearly, we must come back to them, understand their importance and move forward on the basis of these values.”

The parallel is rather scary, is it not?

Quoting Nikolai Berdyaev in the same news conference, Putin went on to say,
“The point of conservatism is not that it obstructs movement forward and upward, but that it prevents the movement backward and downward. That, in my opinion, is a very good formula, and it is the formula that I propose.”

Does this make you wonder if Putin is really quoting Nikolai Berdyaev or Ronald Reagan?

What Putin said above corresponds to the statement he previously made when questioned about Russia's laws banning “propaganda of non-traditional relations".
Putin - “Russia sees itself as a defender of conservative values against what it considers an assault of genderless and fruitless so-called tolerance which equals good and evil".

History provides undeniable proof that one cannot point to any society that either prospered or was even able to sustain itself through moral corruption and the subsequent destruction of its youth. Communist China is now facing the realization that the sustainability of their nation is in jeopardy because their “one-child” has destroyed generations of their youth. The American Leftists and Progressives are indistinguishable from the European socialists and they are leading the United States down the same road to failure as we see happening to socialist countries in the EU. Thanks to the incompetence of our politicians in all parties and at all levels of government, we are already facing a severely crippled manufacturing base and an unsustainable debt load. If we continue to allow the destruction of our society and youth through the corruption of so-called “tolerance” then we shall reap the harvest of the evil we sow. God help us!