Suppose

Just suppose for a minute that there really is a God and that homosexual behavior really is wrong. Just as the Scriptures and the Christian churches teach. If this is the case, then how would you treat someone who sins in this manner? Just like other sinners from adulterers to thieves - you try your best to teach them to forsake their sinful ways. If the sinner is a family member or a stranger, they need to understand what they are doing is wrong so they can repent and live joyfully. Not telling them that their behavior is wrong would be the most harmful thing possible.

And yet, we allow the pervert lobby to control the culture and our response. We don't speak out over fear of offending or fear of retaliation - a very real fear with the homosexual lobby that monitors the media and attacks anyone who says homosexual behavior is wrong either personally or by lodging complaints with an employer or government agency. (All of which have personally happened to me.) I would much rather offend these evildoers than offend God. I also am concerned for their spiritual and physical health. So I do my best to let them know their behavior is wrong and damages them in many ways. And this is the kindest and best thing I can do.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

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

They still don't get it

I note Dick Armey, former Republican speaker of the house, who quit in 2002 has caused a firestorm criticizing the Religious Right. As member of the Church of Jesus Christ, who is considered non-Christian by James Dobson and other political religious leaders, I can understand where Armey is coming from. The religious right is intolerant to some degree, going out of their way to marginalize natural allies like the Mormons. But rather than just stating what is obvious to most, Armey had to throw in a few specifics that show that he, like the rest of the current Republican leadership, still doesn't get it.

Armey, in a pre-election op-ed in the Washington Post, said Republicans were going to lose because they wasted time and political capital on things like defending the family and marriage, and pro-life battles like protecting disabled people like Terri Schiavo. Now family values, life, and liberty are the very issues this government was formed on. (Note to Armey: Read the Declaration of Independence which states the reasons to even have a government are to protect life and liberty)

And this shows those who control the Republican party still don't get it. Armey notes smaller government and lower taxes are the really important principles. These are important principles, but they are not as important as life and liberty. And though I agree that smaller government (PC code for less spending) and lower taxes are important, Americans don't believe this as demonstrated by boondoggles like public funding of fetal stem-cell research (which has never shown any results, causes tumors when used, and is unfunded by private research and drug companies precisely because it has no potential), 100 billion in bonds approved in bankrupt California, and medical welfare for the rich elderly. And I blame Armey for this as much as anyone in America. Instead of arranging private deals, Armey, a full-time paid legislator, should have been using his power to educate a new generation of conservatives. If you look at the political leanings of the under 30 crowd, you will see how utterly Armey failed. President Bush is the other prime architect of the Conservative failure.

These guys had control of the government and they failed to train a new conservative generation. They should have appointed conservative judges by the 1000's. They should have given every conservative a government position, even if they did oppose Bush or Armey. They should have done so many things they didn't, and now it will require starting over again. And now conservatives have even less influence in the cultural institutions that shape public opinion like media, arts, and education.

I think there should be a law that any purported political leader who runs a think-tank, like Armey now does, needs to list his salary and where the money in his think-tank comes from and goes. And if he doesn't, then he should be imprisoned if he opens his mouth.

Regarding marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion ( my preferred term for same-sex marriage), this issue is a cultural watershed. If the power of government is used as it increasingly is to promote an immoral lifestyle, then there is really no reason to even have a government. And it's as simple as that. If my children will be indoctrinated about perversion in school, and if my tax dollars are used to establish pro- immoral behaviors and institutions and fund government agencies preventing free expression of religion, then time for the government to go. By whatever means necessary.

Now that is not a call for armed revolution. But neither is it a prohibition of revolution. In almost all cases, it is better to support a government than to take up arms against it. If there is a critical mass of people who believe as you do, eventually you will be able to change the government without violence. Innocent people get hurt, society is damaged, and there is little chance that the next government will be any better. And usually, the only persons to get hurt are the innocents and the revolutionary and his family.

But really, how long should we put up with this loss of freedom that is happening all around us? If marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion is legalized then the whole weight of government will be twisted to protecting what is an immoral and physically-damaging life-style. Kind of like the movie Life of Brian where the revolutionaries decide that fighting for a man's right to have babies (even if he doesn't have a uterus) is now a reason for revolution. The immoral lobby aren't content with having their perversions legalized (which they recently were in the Supreme Court decision to void all sexual behavior laws like sodomy). They want to force the public to support their immoral life-style - nothing else will suffice. And when an illogical, stupid thing like homosexual behavior becomes reason for a government-sanctioned union, then government really has no purpose at all. I mean, exactly how would you define such a union logically?

Would kissing my shiftless roommate on the cheek mean I could sign him up for health benefits and tax benefits? How about kissing him on the mouth? How about a little tongue and a good grope? (Yes, this is offensive but so is marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion and it's time we said right out loud what such stupid ideas mean) Would I have to do this in public somewhere, or could I just check off a box on some form? Maybe a good vigorous hug? Maybe submitting naked pictures would be more fair to assure that only true pervert couples were given all the benefits of marriage.? Do you see how this stands reason on its head? How can you even talk about a moral concept like the fairness of giving health benefits to your roommate if he has sex with you but not if he doesn't, if there are no morals, and no guide to what fairness even is?

And regarding Schiavo, murdered by her husband through neglect and a court order by Judge George Greer ( who ought to be executed - both for murder and presuming that a judge has the power to over-rule the people, their morals, their government and their religion), I like a quote from Ilana Mercer on World Net Daily. She noted that a Dr. Szasz had compared the case to the decision of King Solomon in the Bible between 2 women who both claimed a child. Solomon proposed cutting the baby in half and giving each mother a half. (This would, of course, have been fair in the same sense that marriage based on nothing more than a perversion would be fair) The true mother, being concerned more with the baby's welfare than her own wishes, then offered to let the false mother have the baby rather than kill it. "In Schiavo vs. Schindler, the judge lacking Solomonic wisdom, gave the proverbial baby to the party that had vowed to have her killed." Did you ever think of it that way? I hadn't.

But I expect nothing to change in the Republican party. Even here in "conservative" Utah, I leave the Republican gatherings having been insulted, called extremist, and marginalized if I try to get the party and its hacks to support the platform. I've been banned from a website called Free Republic (may it fail, burn in Hell, and get sued by the ACLU) some time ago for opposing the war in Iraq because it was not needed for national defense. So much for "conservatism". Armey perfectly represents the current republican leadership - trying to blame the exhausted, battered and bleeding troops amid the smoking ruins of their civilization, all the while being fed grapes and being fanned gently by servants, while he's making deals with the enemy so he can keep his riches and power. (Note Armey is accused of being in bed with the ACLU lately)

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Part III - Speaking your mind may well lose your job

Not too long ago, I responded to an on-line question from someone who wanted information to counter claims that homosexual behavior is genetically determined. I wrote an answer complete with footnotes refuting this view. (To this day, there is almost no evidence that this is the case) Now in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not there is a genetic component to such behaviors - it doesn't matter if you are pre-disposed to alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, violence, child abuse, child molestation, theft or any other sin - these actions are still morally wrong.

But there is little evidence that there is a genetic component to any of these behaviors. Twin studies for example have never found more than a 50% concordance for any of the above behaviors - and many are much less - indicating that choice and environment are probably the greatest determinants. There have been many attempts to link genetics to homosexual behavior. The reason you don't see any of these studies is that they are all unable to find this link. For a while, there were 2 or 3 studies that have been refuted. One was done by someone who practiced homosexual behavior and found an obscure part of the brain was smaller in men who practiced homosexual behavior. Others who studied the same thing later found this not to be true and the researcher used bias, subjects who had died of AIDS (wouldn't be all that surprising that such a devastating illness might also affect the brain), and non-random selection. Another study had some of the main researchers charge each other with fraud and lying about the data. Anyway, there still isn't any evidence. An editorial in Scientific American pointed this out not long ago. And there are lots of papers showing that homosexual behavior is mostly or completely learned.

Now, anyone reading this may disagree with me. They may point out one of the refuted papers. Or bring up evidence they feel shows things differently. Or (and this is the most common liberal reasoning) because they feel something really, really, really strongly, then it must be true. All of that is just fine with a conservative. A conservative would not for a moment consider doing you harm because you disagreed.

And by the way, I refuse to use the word "gay" to label those who practice homosexual behavior. Gay means happy - not perverted. Interestingly, I note that teens use the word "gay" to mean stupid - which I think is only fair since those who practice homosexual behavior twisted a nice word to their purposes. I feel that people are more than their sexual behavior - for good or ill. I refuse to label other people this way. We're all people - begotten sons and daughters of Deity (if you believe that kind of thing), and we all have divine potential.

Anyway, after I posted an answer to that comment I got a summons from the legal department of the company I worked with. Apparently, those who practice homosexual behavior have a network that monitors print and internet media for material damaging their cause. They respond to it in a variety of ways -letters to the editors, anonymous threats, and complaints to local discrimination agencies and employers. It turns out this large company that bought my little company (Phycor) had some kind of lawyers who ran a department that somehow felt it had power to tell employees what to think, say and write about moral, religious and scientific matters - even if your expressions were done on your time, at home, and on your own equipment. And even though this company would shortly go bankrupt, destroying millions of investors dollars, they still had time to investigate an anonymous complaint made by some cowardly little puke who practiced homosexual behavior. Now, I went to this meeting loaded for bear. The 2 administrators who read the post laughed at the whole mess and that was that. But that I had to even respond to such crap shows that this homo lobby has way too much respect and power. To think, an anonymous claim, where the motivation of the claimant is unknown could cause me trouble. And what if the administrator who fielded the complaint had practiced homosexual behavior? Would I have been fired, disciplined or worse - sent to sensitivity training - a kind of moral brainwashing? Just because I noted there is no proof of genetic links to immoral behavior of any kind?

One more example of the coming totalitarian state. You know and I know this will just get worse. In Canada, saying that the Bible preaches homosexual behavior is wrong can get you imprisoned and fined. It's just a matter of time before it comes here. I note that 7 of the 8 states who tried to make marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion (the proper label for "gay" marriage) succeeded in protecting marriage for now. But in none of them was the margin very large. Arizona actually defeated marriage laws. Only 2 years ago, such laws passed by large margins in even Massachusetts and California. The handwriting is on the wall. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin. (We are being weighed, and are found wanting, and our kingdom will be taken from us) Faggot is treated like the n-word. Anyone who points out homosexual behavior is wrong is labelled fascist or racist.

Not long after my internet comment, I wrote an editorial in the local paper outlining these same points. I received so much opposing mail - much of it hate mail calling me names - that the paper printed a letter saying no more responses to my editorial would be printed. Also, they never printed even one letter in my support, even though several people mailed me copies of these letters - so I know they were sent. Again, this group of people supporting immoral behavior monitors all the media. So if you are thinking of speaking out against them, be warned, you'll be made to pay for it. Worse, your children will be made to pay for it when closeted teachers insult your children or "friends" no longer talk to you or your spouse. But don't think I'm discouraging you. I encourage getting the truth out there. If we allow the liars to repeat their same lies over and over without opposition, some will believe what they say is true. Goebbels learned this lesson well and the immoral lobby has learned it well. (Isn't it interesting that the Nazis like Goering and Goebbels who came up with this concept of repeating lies over and over until they were accepted reportedly practiced homosexual behavior themselves? But I digress)

And a word to those unfortunate individuals who find themselves practicing these behaviors or even tempted by these behaviors. These behaviors are wrong. They are damaging mentally, physically, morally, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. You can act morally by not succumbing to these behaviors. God will help you if you ask. Your loved ones will help you if you ask. Pastors, priests and counselors will help you if you ask. God guarantees in the Bible (1 Corinthians 10.13) that he will not give any of us a temptation that we can't overcome. Please realize that pointing out your behavior is wrong is actually the nicest, most respectful thing that can be done. Letting wrong behavior go uncorrected would be like letting a 2 year old play in a busy street because he wants to and gets mad if we try and stop him. (Not that you are 2 year old's - but I think you get my point)

Anyway, just another example of how free speech is being stamped out it America

Vincet Veritas, MEB