Moral Vacuum and Religious Leaders

Here's a quote from the head of a Protestant Church that is falling apart over attempts to shove homosexual behavior down the throats of members who believe the Bible and its condemnation of such behavior. It really doesn't matter who and exactly what church, because this is happening in many churches. This is her response to churches voting to leave the national organization. "God gives us a gift in the midst of that diversity, and we more fully know both truth and God's will for us when we are able to embrace that diversity" .

First of all, I'm not sure what that sentence even means. I'm not sure if the author of that statement knows what that means. I'll bet she couldn't come up with such a sentence twice. Now the politically correct are adept at using code words - words that carry a certain meaning that the rest of the world doesn't get. Like Pro-choice meaning that the result is a dead baby who never had any choice whatsoever. Any sane person would say the choice came in initiating the behavior that led to pregnancy, but that would be wrong. Avoiding immoral behavior is given other code words like "judgemental" and "intolerant".

So let's examine that inane quote that is a masterpiece of saying nothing. We'll start with the word "God". Surely, she can't be referring to the God of the Bible who not only condemns this immoral behavior, but feels so strongly about it that he wipes out 5 whole cities like San Francisco. (Sodom and Gomorrah and the "cities of the plain".) An apostle who spreads His message to the world, Paul, condemns it repeatedly and even uses it as a characteristic of the "last days", a time so wicked that the whole world will be destroyed. More and more "churches" delete out or ignore commandments and moral teachings. What is the point of following Christ if you ignore his teachings?

And what is the "gift" to which she refers? Deviant sexual behavior? Is she really suggesting that disgusting and vile acts like homosexual behaviors are a "gift" from God? A religious leader? Or is it the leaving of so many faithful members who want a little morality with their weekly dose of Religion? And what does "diversity" refer to? Diverse sins and perversions? Christ taught that we should be "one"; if not, we are not His. Sounds like the opposite of diversity to me. And I don't even want to speculate what "embrace that diversity" means when it comes to homosexual behavior. Such speculations would make me lose my lunch. And what is diversity? By itself, this term is meaningless. Saying 'Diversity is good' is like saying 'Frequency is good'. Frequent what? Frequent pain would be bad, wouldn't it?

You can say this perversion of a once vibrant Christian Church is the exception, but behavior like this cleric's is becoming commonplace everywhere. When was the last time you heard a Christian leader say, "Islam is a false religion because it does not accept Christ as the literal Son of God"? Any Christian leader. How exactly will our Muslim brothers and sisters be brought to the truth if they don't even know what it is? "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?", was how Paul put it. Oh, we get occasional squeaks from this and that leader, but where is the full sound of the trumpet? When was the last time any Christian leader said, "Homosexual behavior is evil"?

Now I understand that there are liberal Christian religions out there. But what are we to think when James Dobson, as conservative a Christian as they come, never once points out that homosexual behavior is evil, or that bringing a child into a homosexual union is evil when he is asked to comment on Mary Cheney having a baby that will be raised by her and her lesbian lover? This essay is in this week's commentary in Time magazine. (Could be Newsweek or US News, but it's one of those three) He basically says that he is asked to comment on this horrible occurrence but won't. He does point out that there are a lot of sociological studies showing that children do best with a father. But he never calls what she is doing wrong, even though Christ himself mentioned that those who hurt a child morally would be better off drowned. (And how can you not hurt a child morally in such a situation?) The head of a major Christian pro-family organization - Focus on the Family- will not condemn such behavior, choosing rather to hide behind sociology.

Even as I write this, realizing that it is the honest truth, my Political-correctness muscle winces with pain when I use the word "evil" instead of the milder "wrong" and when I write that Islam is a "false religion", without adding a disclaimer about Islam having many good things and some Muslims don't incinerate Christians when they dislike them. Such is the cultural evil that infests this world.

We have so bought into the current evil of this world, that we can't even say that homosexual behavior is evil and that bringing a child into such a situation is evil. Only a few short years ago, we would have heard ringing denunciations from across this once great nation. Now we hear only a few whimpers because we're scared that Satan won't like us. Only a few short years ago, the government would have actually stepped in and taken this child from such a household to protect it. Now that same government is being manipulated into condoning and recognizing such behavior.

And have you heard even one politician say that Mary Cheney is wrong? Even one? What kind of diversity is that? I don't expect much from the liberals, though I note that Mormon's like Majority leader Harry Reid, certainly know better, and on Sunday pretend to oppose such behavior. But it is the Republicans' behavior that amazes me. Where is the outrage from Christian President GW Bush? Or Mormon Karl Rove? Or any other of the Republican leaders? Can you find even one? Talk about fear being in the air. Just think. Not even one politician can find the moral backbone to state that Mary Cheney's actions are reprehensible. Not one. Obviously there are at least a few that know and think differently. But they are so afraid of the current cultural environment, or being ridiculed, or losing power and influence, that they will not speak out.

And in such a world, how long will it be until we not only won't speak out, but we can't speak out because it will be illegal? Like in Canada right now.

Think about the level of moral cowardice displayed over the Cheney event. Not one religious leader. Not one politician. Not one author, actor, musician, professor. Not one. Not even one. Then turn to Genesis 18.

Abraham entertains Angels from God. They are on a mission. This mission involves Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 16. "And the men rose up and looked toward Sodom: And Abraham went with them." Abraham doesn't yet know why. The Lord appears and explains to Abraham what He will do and why. Verse 20. "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it." That is, the Lord will examine to see if the whole cities are perverted and need to be wiped out. The Hebrew word for altogether is "kala". There are 2 closely related words that differ only in diacritic marks. They mean all or complete, or total destruction. This is an ominous word. "And the men turned their faces and went toward Sodom." "But Abraham stood yet before the Lord." In one of the most heart-rending scenes in the Bible, Abraham pleads for these cities and their inhabitants. Verse 23. "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" Maybe there is a way out - a way to save these cities. "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou also destroy the place for fifty righteous?" "And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous then I will spare all the place for their sakes."

It becomes clear why the Lord is putting up with Abraham. The Lord is teaching Abraham that He is just. There are no righteous in the city. Abraham, knowing Sodom, then realizes that 50 righteous is a stretch for Sodom (or D.C., New York, or Frisco?). Verse 28. "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty: wilt though destroy all the city for lack of five?" "If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it." Well, it is Sodom after all, so Abraham then says, "Peradventure there shall be forty found there." Then, "Peradventure there shall thirty be found there." "I shall not do it, if I find thirty there." But it's Sodom we're talking about here. "Peradventure, there shall be twenty" or "ten". "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."

Now we all know how the story ends. Lot is sent packing and then there is not even one righteous person left. Not one. Not even one. Just like the number of our leaders condemning homosexual behavior and bringing a child into such an environment. Not one. Not even one.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

President Bush Is a Moral Coward

This shouldn't be news to anyone. I proudly recognized this years ago when Bush first started using the term "compassionate conservative". A liberal couldn't have done a better job at discrediting the whole conservative movement and making them look like the original Scrooge. Bush slapped all the conservatives in the face and called us all uncompassionate. Bush also showed that he was all about words and appearances and not about substance. That's why I worked on the Keyes campaign which got 20% of the vote here in Utah.

But the happening today which makes me reiterate that Bush is a moral coward is his refusal to comment on and condemn the VP's lesbian daughter having a child.

First of all, I rarely call people names. I may call their positions stupid, but most people are (I assume) as smart or stupid as me. I've certainly had my stupid positions over the years. But when Bush is too cowardly to even make an inane statement like "I believe that children are best raised by a mother and a father", he is a moral coward.

As a physician and scientist, there are plenty of studies showing that children do best (stay out of jail, stay off drugs, stay free of violence, get along with others, etc.) when they have a father and mother. Bush could easily have acknowledged this without actually attacking his VP's daughter. But he was too cowardly. His new minister of propaganda, Tony Snow, even went out of his way to say that neither Snow nor the President would comment on this. Exactly what is pro-family about not supporting families? Shades of 1984 (the book, not the year) where pro-family now means anti-family.

Bush can't be re-elected. He has nothing to lose. He doesn't have to work to get the lesbian vote. He could simply say that the kind of family that God picked for his Son - father, mother and child - is best. At Christmas time, such a message would be especially appropriate. And if anyone dared attack him, Bush could have simply labelled them anti-Christian and been done with it - plus he would have shifted the frame of conversation to something holy rather than something profane, tawdry and perverted.

This silence from the Commander-in-Chief is ominous. Even Bush and his handlers now fear the power of those who practice homosexual behavior. They think the media would label them as "evil". They think that there is not enough cultural support out there to overcome the queer lobby. They are probably right; but still a morally courageous President would defend family values.

In my opinion, resorting to sociological studies to defend the family is wrong. Why wrestle in the mud if you can bomb them from 50,000 feet - that is, it is simply immoral for a lesbian to have and raise children. God says so.

Sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. Cheney is not married, so conceiving this child was immoral. Children should be born in families. God knows there are plenty of things that go wrong even in families (50% divorce etc.), but at least the child should start in an ideal situation. Even if artificially inseminated, bringing a child into a perverted home is wrong and damaging to the child. Will Cheney "love" the child? Do child molesters "love" their victims? Does Oprah "love" orphans? Does Angelina Jolie "love" her latest adopted pets, cared for by the best nanny money can buy? Can't you see that this is meaningless and irrelevant? What they will do is the important thing, not how they will feel. And this child will lack all the important things a father brings, and be forced into a perverted parody of a real family. How could such a child not be raised believing that God is evil because He forbids such relations? There is really no alternative. Either God is good, and mommy and her lesbian lover are selfish creeps, or God is evil. You can't have it any other way.

Lesbians and males who practice homosexual behavior are unfit to parent because they are immoral lesbians and males who practice homosexual behavior. And we who know this to be true should shout it from the rooftops. We don't need to find some article. Next week the pervert lobby will find an article saying perversion is actually good for children. We need to refer this debate to a Higher Source. And there is no doubt what He has to say on the matter. And I quote, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his (or her) neck, and that he (or she) were drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6 KJV

Now for the reader who doesn't agree with this, I want you to stop and think. This scripture is in context. Christ is teaching that children should be valued and loved and protected and that we should be like them. Ignore whether you think this is "nice" or "judgemental" or "politically correct". I want you to simply concentrate on whether this is true.

I think you will agree with me that Christ felt that those that harmed children, especially regarding belief in God, were better off drowned. So the only question is whether raising a child in a perverted home, even if that child is "loved", is harmed or offended. The original Greek word for offend is "skandalizo" meaning offended, caused to sin, caused to fall away from the faith or go astray. (And can you see where our modern word "scandalize" comes from?) How could a child raised by lesbians not be hurt by this? How could this child not go astray from God's words and commandments if he is taught from birth that God is evil and that there are no sexual standards? Basically Cheney and her lesbian lover are telling the world that they and their filthy desires are more important than God's.

And so, President Bush's response to the news of his Vice President's daughter bringing a child into a perverted parody of a family in direct opposition to what is both best for the child and morally right is not just an innocuous statement. It is the depth of moral cowardice.

And there is another problem I see in all this. If the best the US can do is elect a moral leper who is too scared to defend even the last, best cultural institution - the family -, then why should God bless the USA? What was the end of Sodom and Gomorrah, Rome, Ancient Greece, and Israel when they worshipped the creature more than the Creator? Exactly why should God protect a country where Sodom and Gomorrah are the model of current behavior? Why should he bless a country where the elected leaders are too cowardly to support the family? Why should he uphold the government?

Is God not just? How long will he let the US (which is still more moral than the rest of this depraved world) exist if its government and institutions promote immoral behavior? I fear the answer to those question will become clear in the future. "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" may well be written in blood in our nation's great cities again.

For those of you who don't understand this Biblical allusion, I will elaborate. In Daniel 5:25-28, the prophet Daniel interprets a writing that the King sees appear on the wall of his palace while at a drunken feast using the captured vessels from the Hebrew Temple. The Aramaic (same in Hebrew) words, "Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin" appear which mean "measured, measured, weighed and divided." Daniel interprets this as "God has measured thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting. Thy kingdom will be divided, or destroyed." (And yes, this is where the term "writing on the wall" comes from.)

Think about it. Pray about it. And then do all you can to cry out against this evil thing that the daughter of the Vice President of the United States is doing. And just an aside, how do you think Muslims feel about the US when they read this kind of thing? Are they right?

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Criminal Aliens Heading for Your Neighborhood

It's all but over. There will be a few whimpers from a few conservatives, but America is lost. There will be a period of fighting. Representative Tancredo, Pat Buchanan and a few others will make some money speaking and writing books. In the Republican Conventions, speakers will still get applause by saying we need to fix immigration now (although there will be nothing specific said). Reminds of Raymond Chandler's famous comment on a political speech, "He did not bore us with any facts."

But with the Liberals in power, and a liberal Republican President who has utterly failed to protect his country by securing its borders, even as he harangues us about being "at war", the only question is how long before the deluge reaches your town, your neighborhood, your schools and your place of employment.

I note today perennial Presidential Candidate Richardson, democratic governor of New Mexico, has announced that Mexicans don't like the idea of a fence, so we should be nice and not build it. Richardson is a savvy politician and wouldn't say this if he though it would hurt him. It won't hurt him in New Mexico, a formerly red state that has turned blue. ( And for those of you who don't understand this "red state"/"blue state" terminology, this term comes from the color of states in recent election maps. Republican states are colored red and democratic states are colored blue. So a red state is mostly Republican and a blue state is mostly Democratic.)

Yes, I know that currently the majority of Americans in New Mexico oppose letting criminal aliens into the US. But New Mexico has gone liberal with an influx of cultural liberals and they will vote for Richardson anyway. The few real conservatives won't vote for Richardson anyway and the remaining Republicans are so disorganized trying to defend a liberal President Bush as a "conservative" that bringing this issue up will only divide them further. The Republican party hacks are mostly liberals, closet child-molesters, and neo-con socialists who openly support illegal immigration so that their multi-national stock portfolios will keep going up with the cheap labor keeping industry labor costs low.

The criminal alien lobby consists of the rich who will profit from cheap labor, and the left who always are looking for ways to hurt the US. Since this group controls the media, the average American struggling to get by and be nice will follow along eventually. This lobby will keep calling anyone against illegal immigration "racist" and the like.

The Mexicans, Salvadorans, etc. will continue to pour over the border. 50% of them would come to the US today if possible. They do not at all wish to be Americans, they simply want to get better jobs and any welfare benefits they can come up with. From their point of view, the only rational thing to do is to come here. They have a corrupt government and police, organized crime, no education, no jobs and no future. Remember that just last year, the entire Mexican legislature just about legalized drugs. This would basically surrender the country to the drug lords.

The Republicans failed to secure the borders. The Democrats will essentially open the border even more.

I don't think any rational person can come up with anyone or any set of events that will change this invasion. You can pretend that maybe the next election will bring the Republicans back to power. So what? They haven't done anything now, why will that change in the future? No one thinks there will be anything other than bare majorities in the near future. Bare majorities with RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) will not secure the border.

So to review. With Democrats in the legislature and a liberal President, criminal aliens will become registered voters by the millions when they receive amnesty and citizenship. And what do you think that means in a country where presidential elections are decided by 200 votes in Florida? These voters are socialists and we will see the end of our Constitutional Republic. Oh, its trappings will be there. But liberal judges will continue to legislate. Institutions will stay liberal. No new voters will be educated in American, conservative principles because there will be no place to learn such principles.

The only question is what will this invasion do? Well first of all, these criminal aliens are criminals. They have broken the law just to get here. This matters because why on earth would we expect them to obey other bothersome laws from traffic laws to littering? They are violent. See the statistics if you don't believe me. They breed like rabbits (at our expense). They overwhelm schools, social services and the like. And they are all socialists or communists at heart. They all firmly believe that government exists only to give them everything possible. And that is the heart of the matter. A civilization like ours is based on individual morality and responsiblity. We don't need cops at corners like Latin American countries because we obey laws. They don't.

Yes I know there are exceptions. Some are fine family people. Some are religious. Some work hard. But how many? 10%? Even 50%? Then even that number means 10 million sponges and criminals have come into our country. I'll say it again. 10 million. And no country can cope with 10 million invaders.

Is there any hope? No. Even though there are a majority who oppose criminal aliens, their representatives don't. Oh, a few may pretend - just like President Bush who "opposes" illegal immigration but busily tries to solve the criminal problem by declaring them not to be criminals- but they aren't really serious. And will the people then elect different representatives? Who? The Democrats are even worse. Any truly conservative Republican almost never gets past the earliest stages of the political process. And the process is controlled mostly by liberals. Take California. Many years ago they passed Proposition 187 that said criminals had no right to extort welfare services from their victims. (That such a proposition was even needed demonstrated that the battle was already lost) Liberal judges from years of liberal appointments struck it down. The legislature or the executive government could have fixed this easily. Impeach the judges. Defund the courts. The governor who rules the law enforcing arm of the government could simply refuse to follow the black-robed minions from hell. But they didn't. They whined a little about the injustice of it all, but their inertia and reverence for the rule of law and fear of the cultural mafia castrated them and they allowed the illegal and unjust ruling to stand.

Then California went broke. And the Republican hacks abandoned a Republican who could have done something and brought in a liberal - Schwarzenegger. With all the criminal aliens in California, and the liberals and the rest who are too timid to elect real representatives, the situation will only worsen. So there go 55 electoral votes. Add New York, New England and various other states and it is almost impossible to win again. And it will only worsen. And there is no way to convert the people. The only institutions that could help are talk radio ( and the young don't listen) and a few churches that grow more liberal each year. Not enough to oppose education, arts, politics, media and government.

So there is no hope. What should we then do? Well, of course, we will fight on, gradually losing. Is there a victory strategy? No. We would have to close the borders and we just lost the last chance for that in the forseeable future. We can only defend and educate our families. If we are lucky, the school system will soon fail or become so intolerable that even more children will leave for home-schooling or private schooling. And if we can get enough moral people, we can take back what we have lost.

Our opponents know that. That's why they fight vouchers so strongly. And if they can destroy the middle class by bringing in cheap labor and outsourcing our industries, no one will have enough money to go to a private school. So that leaves only home schooling.

And so the thing that we should most oppose is government getting control of or making home schools illegal. And that's all that is left for us to defend.

I look at my children. My few minutes a day are probably inadequate to reverse the other 20 hours of indoctrination. I take them to church where half the people are closet liberals, so nothing clear can be taught that is even remotely political in nature. Here in "conservative" "Mormon" Utah, a pro-family proposition for marriage was on its way to defeat and suffering from almost no public support until the Church leaders came out publicly for it. And I suspect that the people of my state are as good as it gets in the US. (And the world since elsewhere things are even worse.) But even they were so morally bankrupt and so cowed by political correctness that they wouldn't even support this proposition until threatened with hellfire for not following a Prophet's advice. The future doesn't look bright.

And yet, my children are Patriotic. They go to church. They believe in individual responsibility. And maybe you can do the same with your children. And so on. And maybe, somewhere in the future, we can take back what once was ours and has been lost by apathy and perfidy. What other alternative is there?