The goal of socialists and communists is a weak-minded people that will submit to blatantly immoral and despotic laws. And they have become VERY GOOD at creating that malleable people in the United States.

The Air Force has just released computer-based “training” regarding the recent Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) Repeal. This move is a veiled effort by leftists to incrementally develop weak-mindedness and acceptance of a perverted truth as I hope to outline below.

After seeing many PatriotPost advisor “favorite books” lists, I recently read “The Abolition of Man” (more of a lecture series) where C.S. Lewis made it clearer that tiny steps continue toward the morality precipice by deceptive communication. Assumptions are being communicated with every statement that we make. Those assumptions are shaped and developed in the most insidious institutions: government-controlled education.

So what does this have to do with the military? As with any job, the Prussian education system conditions us to be good employees and soldiers – to think in terms of “climbing the corporate ladder.” This instills servitude instead of liberty because the motivation for many (if not most) is “economy” – security, pension, medical benefits and similar material “comforts.” The same is true for military careerists who might jeopardize promotion to senior grades if they stand for True “Integrity First” as the first Air Force core value. As “public servants” the military relies on the public to stand for truth, honor, integrity, virtue, liberty, justice and Rule of Law. When the public backs down, what is the military to do as servants of the public? Nothing. That’s right, nothing! Either the public leads or despots and tyrants lead! Why must “public servants” declare an oath to “support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC”? How do they do that in the face of public apathy to the constitution and its values without jeopardizing their own security and economy? They can’t! It is either economy OR liberty and most careerists have surrendered liberty for economy as good employees and soldiers are taught to do! Only limited instances allow the pursuit of both economy and liberty at the same time and those rare instances REQUIRE the public to stand for Truth FIRST.

So on to the case of DADT: Online Air Force reeducation [i.e. mind-weakening indoctrination] provides some unique leftist assumptions meant to FURTHER subject the military to inaction and promote apathy toward “Integrity First” and their sworn oath. The “training” blatantly appeals to liberal incrementalism, saying: “People of very different moral values and religious convictions ALREADY co-exist, work, live and fight together on a daily basis. … You CURRENTLY SERVE with a diverse group of people – including gay, lesbian and bisexual members.” Implied is that we shouldn’t be bothered by FURTHER inclusion and accommodation and it is “Integrity” and truth that are sacrificed. Are we to understand that turning a blind eye and conceding immorality is acceptable and lawfully ordered because we are ALREADY doing it?! And what trust can we grant to someone who, under the obligation of their oath and Rule of Law, has KNOWINGLY served alongside sodomites and failed to uphold UCMJ when it prohibited homosexual service? A severe character defect is noted in that individual who did not uphold the lawful UCMJ of the day. So why does one lacking moral courage and morality itself believe it within the military authority to ORDER immorality and force service members to condone sodomy? Perhaps the question provides its own answer: immorality. Why should such an unremarkable and morally bankrupt leader be granted a position of authority and have any say or sway regarding morality when, on personal testimony, is himself devoid of “high standards” of moral character? Remember, where the public sits idly by despots and tyrants lead. Doesn’t it become the duty of the follower to ignore unlawful order that a corrupt leader issues based on the precedent of “situational disobedience” he established himself and because they KNOW it is contrary to morality and “Integrity First”?

The “training” goes on to speak of the “unique position in society” that the military holds that brings certain responsibilities. “As a result,” it says, “Service members are held to high standards of conduct.” The dialog continues with proposed UCMJ changes to the “high standards of conduct” and attempts to redefine sodomy as “punishable [emphasis added] if it is without consent (forcible).” So immoral behavior is now not “punishable” [i.e. condoned] if it is done in private? This policy wrongly assumes that “personal and private” choices are independent and do not indicate individual character and reliability where “good order and discipline” are necessary traits. Trust and respect in a public domain is required and sodomy is a gross perversion such that Founder and President George Washington drummed a sodomite out of the Army. Here is a sobering thought: Let us expose kindergarteners to sodomy in their first year of school so they can be “tolerant” of the behavior. Perhaps parents would like to voluntarily submit their 3 year old to televised acts of people committing sodomy. Do you imagine that a 3 year old might be able to tell you a truth about a viewed act of sodomy? Perhaps it makes them feel “funny” or “weird.” I wonder why that is? As C.S. Lewis says, objects and actions have an intrinsic value independent of emotions. But emotions, untainted by repeated exposure/reeducation, will most certainly indicate the intrinsic value of an action.

Let me pause at this point to make clear that no religion condones sodomy as “good” except atheism. Do you wonder why Islam hates the West? It is as much for our immorality as it is for being “infidels.” Even the religion of evolution denies sodomy because evolution cannot occur where procreation is not possible. At the same time, most religions [especially Christianity] in their true state require compassion and mercy toward the evil-doer while condemning evil acts. Denouncing an act is not the same as denouncing a person, though the character and reliability of the one committing the act is certainly suspect – at best, and evil – at worst. But don’t confuse demonstrated mercy with forgiveness of the righteous God. He is not mocked. The unrepentant is not spared.

The “training” also misapplies UCMJ regulation of the service member’s obligation to obey orders. An ASSUMPTION is made that the order to ignore “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion or personal philosophy” is “an otherwise lawful order.” A false assumption makes an entire statement unreliable. How can an order containing inconsistency and contradictions be considered trustworthy and true? Two wrongs never make a right and beginning from a position of shifting sand cannot establish the solid validity of a position.

Finally, the liberty of chaplains is robbed in favoring sodomites. The “training” says, “Chaplains, in the context of their religious ministry, are NOT required to take actions that are inconsistent with their religious beliefs.” But “if a chaplain is unable to reconcile [i.e. change their morals and religion] serving with or caring for gay, lesbian and bisexual Service members with his or her faith, the chaplain may request that the relevant endorsing agency withdraw its ecclesiastical endorsement [change its morality to suite the military] for him or her. This would trigger an administrative separation [firing a chaplain with moral convictions to retain a sodomite WITHOUT moral convictions].” This assumes that an ecclesiastical denomination should lie about its beliefs to provide an escape hatch for an ordained minister.  Not only should the minister “take it or leave it” but the entire denomination that opposes sodomy should “take it or leave it” and to “leave it” they are compelled to lie in removing an endorsement. Underlying this statement is the fact that the military wants chaplains with loose morals who will support their immorality and they are willing to allow the only sure foundation of “good order and discipline” to erode in the interest of accommodation.

Many people may see room for appeasement or that this is not a significant concession in order to avoid confrontation. They would be wrong! We have already conceded too much and we have one foot dangling over the abyss. But it is the public, “We the People,” that must lead! Abiding by our constitution, the military is not at liberty to establish a military State! True Patriots MUST defend the constitution! “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”