Tag Archives: morality

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”

One of the predictable effects of the secularization of our culture and our society is the debasement of our collective moral fabric, our social mores. The absolute and fundamental matrix of values that form the basis of our Judeo-Christian society have steadily eroded, and at an accelerated rate over the past few decades. This erosion of traditional values has contributed to proliferation of a moral relativism that is profoundly evidenced by displacement of social standards and individual religious belief systems.

c45c6c37e8873f733f2bbba629d700685a861605a5252b951e200da2d32d574cThe late Alan Bloom, professor of philosophy at Cornell, Yale, and the University of Chicago, wrote, “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” If all truth is relative, all morality becomes relative as well, for the elimination of absolute truth claims absolute morality as its first casualty.

This moral relativism has coincided predictably with the secularization of our culture. Supplanting our Judeo-Christian value system, by effectively removing it from the public realm, has effectively left our society as a ship without a moral rudder.

Moral relativism ensues when ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person’s individual choice. There are no absolutes. All morality is relative and up for individual interpretation. Fixed standards of value don’t exist aside from the changing whims of society, social trends, and sometimes even government regulation.

teaching-ethical-thinkingWilliam McGuffey, who authored the McGuffey’s Readers, which were the mainstay of America’s public school system for nearly a century, wrote: “Erase all thought and fear of God from a community, and selfishness and sensuality would absorb the whole man.” Today we witness the veracity of his statement with certitude.

Moral relativism weakens our collective cultural conscience. It weakens our ability to identify evil and our resolve to confront it as such. It leads to the perfidious exoneration of individual responsibility and culpability for perpetrators of evil, and seeks blame for such actions in social, parental, and educational failures. It prevents us from recognizing the evil in our midst that threatens our families, our neighborhoods, our culture, and our nation. And if allowed to continue unabated, it perpetuates the continued erosion of our entire civilization.

John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

qq1sgMosesMoralityBenjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. “The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be [based] in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.  Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”

Noah Webster, for whom the Webster Dictionary is named, and often regarded as the father of American scholarship and education, echoed those sentiments. “The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution assures the free exercise of religion, yet due to fear of lawsuits from the ACLU and other malcontents, religion has been nearly expunged from the public square. The freedom of exercise clause has been consequently whittled to a sliver, as religious expression and any semblance of religious morality has been systematically extirpated from society in general.

secularismWe have become such a paranoid secular society due to political correctness that even the establishment clause of the First Amendment is incessantly challenged. And when you think about it, by far the most coercive element challenging the establishment clause is secularism itself, which is little more than a godless belief system that substitutes God with human intellect. A student uttering a Christian prayer at commencement no more violates separation of church and state (which isn’t even in the Constitution) than a secular commencement address. Neither violates the compulsory prohibition as expressed in the establishment clause, which disallows a state-sponsored religion.

moral-choicesLast November Rev. Billy Graham presented his final broadcast to the American people. In it he declared, “Our country’s in great need of a spiritual awakening. If ever there was a time this country needed the intervention of God, it is now. We can and should pray for America as a whole, but remember that when God sets out to change a nation, He begins by changing people. It starts with individuals.”

Former LDS Church President Harold B. Lee uttered a similar statement. “This nation, founded on principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail…. I have faith in America. You and I must have faith in America.”

America was not founded as, nor was it ever intended to be, a godless country. Secularism is euthanizing the soul of the nation, challenging even the bedrock institutions of civilization. If we are to survive, it will be by turning to God and reaffirming the natural rights acknowledged and ostensibly assured by our classical-liberal founders, and by those of moral clarity and conviction being involved in the political process.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

A Tale of Two Families



If ever you experience a sliver of doubt that leftism is an evil cancer that must be excised as thoroughly as possible for the very survival of our society as a whole, consider these two California families.




The Nikolayev Family

baby takenAnna Nikolayev and her husband Alex watched helplessly as police literally ripped their five month old baby from her arms.  “I’m going to grab your baby and don’t resist and don’t fight me, okay?” one of the officers told her. The reason this family was torn apart was simply because the parents decided to seek a second opinion for their son before subjecting him to open heart surgery. They were not getting adequate care or answers from the doctors, they felt, and so they decided to find better care. As it turns out, the parents were correct. The second doctor confirmed their suspicion that open heart surgery was not an appropriate course of action for this infant. Eager to defend his poor judgement, the original doctor vindictively embroiled this family in a battle for their parental rights that they must continue to fight.

The Morneo/Lobel Family

lesbian parentsPauline Morneo and Debra Lobel are the lesbian parents of eleven year old Thomas, who now goes by the name “Tammy”. When this little boy was three, the mothers taught him sign language because he had a speech impediment. According to Debra and Pauline, Thomas’ first sign told them, “I’m a girl”. Upon making the wildly irrational decision that a three year old has the capacity to determine his “gender identity”, they began raising him as a girl and have now gone so far as to put him on hormones to stop his puberty. Apparently the sign language at age three coupled with the fact that this boy seemed to prefer headbands to baseball caps was enough to prompt these women to seek out doctors willing to implant a hormone suppressant in his arm so he will not experience puberty. Child Protective Services is not involved.

Up is down. Black is white. The world makes no sense. Parents who behave as parents should, like the Nikolayevs, are punished severely, even though they were right all along. Parents who are motivated by a bizarre far leftist agenda and push their son into a lifestyle he has no true concept of and medicate him with drugs that will permanently alter his brain chemistry when he has absolutely no ability to weigh the consequences or consent to such a thing are lauded by their community as “progressive” “heroes”. Yesterday I asked the question “where are we going and why are we in this hand basket?” and indeed, we are not just slouching toward Gomorrah but happily skipping headlong toward its very heart.

We are rationalizing the irrational, punishing what should be celebrated and celebrating what should be punished. We are abandoning facts in favor of feelings. Is it any wonder our families, our children, our freedoms, and our very way of life is slipping away from us? We are facing so many challenges as a country right now, and those who expect to solve them without focusing on our huge moral crisis need a wakeup call. When we decide as a society that morality is not black and white, that the truth is subjective, that values are fluid and ever changing, we cannot expect to reap anything but the disaster we’ve sown.

Free Market Revolution

Amid the ire directed towards our government, our biggest corporate entities and each other, there are calls from all sides for dramatic change in the policies and politics of America. From TEA party activists, to Occupiers, to the weary long-time unemployed, there is a sense of urgency that something must change, and must change fast. Free Market Revolution is a hard and honest look at the current culture of dependency, the malaise of a once motivated people, and the events that have culminated in our current fiscal crises and ever growing discontent with a system that repeatedly fails to promote growth and prosperity… and offers the only credible and moral ( yes, I said moral) solution to our country’s woes.

In Free Market Revolution, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins break down the often repeated talking points that our current financial crises was caused by greed and deregulation. They speak factually and bluntly about the actual numbers of regulations that were added during the last and current Administration, and their roles in creating a recipe for guaranteed disaster in the housing market, the resulting credit and lending crises that has been fueling the greatest recession since the 1930s, as well the slowest recovery in modern history. The undeniable blame for the current business-killing climate is laid at the feet of big government and collective calls for more regulation, where it belongs.

Dispelled, is the myth that America operates under a capitalist, free market system and explained are the reasons why proponents of a purely free market have been incapable of offering a defense of capitalism that appeals to America as a whole: A moral case for capitalism as an economic system that creates opportunity, wealth, and security for all, without ignoring what the left has so effectively defined as “basic need” and “rights”. Critics of Ayn Rand, without fail, point to her lack of empathy for the poor as a means of demonizing a free market system. Capitalists have been unable to argue the emotional talking points and the morality argument presented by the left, giving way to even more cries for social safety nets and spending by the government to pay for those “basic needs”. Until now.

Free Market Revolution makes clear what capitalists, successful businessmen, and proponents of Ayn Rand’s free market ideas have always known: That the only moral economic system is one that allows for success or failure based on individual effort and self-interest. Yaron Brook and Don Watkins put forth the simple idea that an economy unfettered by overbearing regulation will stimulate innovation and regulate itself via competition and common sense. They handily dismiss the idea that all entrepreneurs and successful business owners are out to gain by nefarious means, and grant the reader the idea that working for your own prosperity is not only fundamentally human, but also fundamentally moral. It is time for supporters of a free market economy to point out that the free market has not existed in America and could not have caused our current fiscal crises. It is time to stop allowing people like Madoff to be the public image of corporate success, and time to stop granting merit to the idea that selfishness automatically means benefiting at the cost of another.

Free Market Revolution is a tool for free market capitalists. One that offers a logical argument to the more and more public and political shouts against free markets and cheers the morality of an economic system that should not need defending, but extolling. You can order your copy here!

Yaron Brook (@YaronBrook) is Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Investor’s Business Daily, and CNN.com, and appeared on The O’Reilly Factor, The Glenn Beck Show, On the Money, and Closing Bell, among others. A former finance professor at Santa Clara University, he is the co-writer with Don Watkins of a column on business and capitalism at Forbes.com

Don Watkins (@dwatkins3) is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and the co-writer with Yaron Brook of a column on business and capitalism at Forbes.com. He appears regularly on radio and TV, and his op-eds have appeared in such venues as Investor’s Business Daily, The Christian Science Monitor, FoxNews.com, and Forbes.

Gay Marriage, What’s at Stake for America

Gay marriage.  Right or wrong?

According to Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy and many Americans of faith, the Bible has the final word.  Marriage = man and woman.  End of story.

This simple statement, and still widely held belief, has infuriated homosexual activists and become a focal point of the culture war that is engulfing America.  Gay marriage zealots, who claim to preach tolerance and love, instead hurl insults and openly wish financial ruin, injury or death upon anyone who dares to support a biblical definition of marriage.  The preachers of tolerance themselves have become wildly intolerant.  Accusing others of “hate” while in the same breath spewing forth a cocktail of profanity ridden vitriol, they become the very thing that they rail against.

Purveyors of hate and intolerance.

It’s an ugly scene.  Volatile.  And it’s going to get worse.

The proponents of gay marriage claim that their struggle is about equal rights, equal treatment under the law and the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But, the issue is not about equality.

It’s not about rights.

It’s about right and wrong.  The question of morality.

Who will define it and by what moral standard should we, as a nation, live?

Ultimately, almost every law has a moral component to it.  Some more than others.  Since long before 1776, the colonies and their inhabitants looked to a single source for their understanding of right and wrong.

The Bible.

The American Revolution itself was kindled by the contradiction between the actions of King George III and the pronouncements of Scripture.  A simple reading of the Declaration of Independence confirms this in its most recognizable passage. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

It was a radical statement for the time.  Rooted in biblical truth.

“…all men are created equal…”.  A not-so-veiled swipe at the superiority of the Monarchy and the institution of slavery.  The statement is drawn from numerous passages of Scripture that clearly indicate that we are all viewed equally in the sight of God.  We are all equally accountable to our Maker.

“…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”.  A clear declaration that all rights descend to all men from God, not from the throne and not by edict from any ruler or institution of man.  Anyone who tramples on those rights is guilty of an offense to God and man.

While early America’s view of morality and law was certainly based on biblical principles, it took 89 years for the nation to end the cruel and immoral practice of slavery.  Once again, as in the Revolution, the effort was led by people of the Bible—Christian abolitionists—and paid for by the blood of over 600,000 Americans.

It’s clear that Americans have always looked to the Bible as the source of moral teaching.  It’s part of our national heritage.  It’s in the American DNA.  It’s who we are.  It crafted our nation and our national identity.  One cannot understand America without understanding the role that the Bible has played in our development as a nation and as a people.  Over time, our nation has begun to stray from its biblical roots, but in large part the people of the nation still view morality from a biblical perspective—even if they are not aware of it.

So, is gay marriage moral?  Is it morally equivalent to the marriage of a man and woman and therefore deserving of the same status, rights and benefits?

Proponents say “yes,” that America has evolved beyond our dependency on the Bible as the source of truth and morality.   They believe that our laws should reflect the moral behavior of the current culture.

For gay marriage supporters and their Democrat party brethren, truth and morality are moving targets and are dependent upon the whims of society at any given moment.  In reality, what they advocate is a world where absolute truth does not exist and morality is determined by the behavior of the masses.

This is the horror of moral relativism.  And it is incredibly dangerous.

History is filled with examples of nations and peoples ruled by “of the moment” morality, whether it was imposed by executive order or simply embraced as the common, everyday behavior of the average person.

Dictators have murdered millions in the name of their own twisted moralities.  Nations have descended into decay and disorder as an unquenchable thirst to fulfill every human desire spread like a cancer, corroding cultures and shattering civil societies.

America, on the other hand, has been the greatest success story the world has ever known.  Rising from obscurity to become the dominant economic, military and cultural powerhouse of the world.  Why is that?

Is it our political or economic system?  The strength of our military?  Not so, say Chinese researchers.  According to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, an official government institution, Christianity is where our strength lies.  “…Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.  The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

In other words, America is successful because of our biblical heritage.  Our Christian culture and society.

Will America continue as a nation that draws its sense of morality from a biblical perspective or are the concepts of “right” and “wrong” simply to be determined by ballot or public opinion?

If the Democrat party and gay marriage advocates are successful in enacting gay marriage laws throughout the country, we will have started down a road of ruin where morality is not determined by any objective standard, but by political tactics, advertising and relentless publicity campaigns.

We will be vulnerable to continued attempts to define morality downward in an ever expanding search for unlimited personal freedom and the “right” to do all that we might imagine.  The freedom and right to do anything and everything that the human heart desires will drive our understanding of right and wrong, effectively removing “wrong” from the equation altogether.

Unleashed from our archaic understanding of biblical morality, we will then be free to express our darkest desires under the protection of law and with broad, societal acceptance.  We will be emancipated.  Free to live as animals do, without regard to our Creator and without concern for such things as decency, goodness and honor.  Our moral code will be limited only by the cravings of our corrupted hearts.

This is what the gay marriage issue is really about.

What is right and what is wrong.

The moral code upon which our society shall rise, or fall.

If that code is cracked, we are in great peril indeed.


Man Against Himself: The Crux of American Decline

America’s stunning decline appears to many to be a sudden reversal of fortune. But this seemingly precipitous implosion is actually the result of a systematically planned demolition job carried out over the last century. And what appears to be an organic process of cultural decay is the fruit of ideological warfare waged by the left over many decades.

If one were to break up the aspects of human life into different spheres — the political, the economic, and the cultural — then we get a clearer view as to our strategy on the New Right to restore liberty and individual protections. A threat to Constitutionally limited government that many are not familiar with is cultural marxism, which will be briefly discussed in this essay.

Our civilization is thoroughly saturated with cultural marxism to the extent that we less conscious and introspective Americans are like fish that do not know they are wet. The moral content of nearly every cultural phenomenon is almost undeniably leftist, and its mode of expression is often designed to frustrate rational thought or defy analysis. This is a deliberate strategem of the left that plays on the obtuse linkages between aesthetics and morality. One aspect of this strategy that I have discussed before may be called “pop subversion.”

The technological advances in mass communications brought about greater empowerment of the individual to communicate with his fellow man. The information revolution stood poised to bring about the insights of The Enlightenment to all mankind, and thus to undermine the ideological bases of state power. But these technological innovations also provided powerful tools to the state, and its facilitators, the collectivists, to manipulate what they refer to as the ‘public sphere.’

One leftist mastermind who recognized the powerful possibilities of the new media was Antonio Gramsci. An Italian communist, Gramsci posited that in order for communism to be brought to the West, the culture would have to be infiltrated by a ‘long march’ through the institutions of information dissemination; first and foremost, the schools and universities,  followed by news media, radio and music entertainment, film, and the courts.

The ideological subversion would be gradual, but would reinforce and complement the neomarxists’ erosion of the capitalist economic system, which they referred to as “the base.” Fundamental to transforming the culture was to lead men to interpret events and politics in the desired manner, so that the recreation of the economic conditions along class warfare lines, using such instruments as the Fabian socialist banking policy of intentional inflation, would lead to the popular support of socialism.

But in order to create, one must first destroy, to paraphrase Nietzsche. The ideological weapons of the left were to be found in the texts of various atheistic or state-worshiping philosophers. Hegel taught the triumph of the State, and the establishment of rule by the god of Reason. Marx taught class warfare, and material determinism of the kind that eviscerates the free will of the individual. Nietzsche laid the foundation for nihilistic moral and cultural relativism by eschewing men to get ‘beyond good and evil.’ Freud called religion the ‘opiate of the masses,’ and Gyorgy Lukacs sought ways to culturally destroy it. Heidegger taught that the essence of humanity was not life, but existence. Dewey prepared the way for the left’s educational agenda by stripping ideology out of discussion in the social sciences to be replaced by pragmatism. Sartre and Camus demoralized men’s creative and aspirational spirit through cultural promulgation that man was in existentialist crisis.  Foucault imprisoned men’s minds by insisting that power relationships are inescapable.  What emerges out of a survey of modern philosophy as offered by our universities is a uniformity of thought hostile to individual freedom. This set of philosophy can be referred to as anti-humanist in content, as it shuns the Christian-based humanism of the Renaissance that led to The Enlightenment.

Complementing the ideological indoctrination in our universities was to be the daily reinforcement of the news media, who falsely portrayed themselves as a consensus spontaneously and objectively reporting current events, before becoming more ideologically combative as they were challenged from below. The daily duplicity of the news media is relatively easy to analyze for the rational man. The medium invites analysis, and those who would do so are predominately the consumers of it. Since the overt leftism of the establishment news media is so noticeable, especially in relief to the alternative reportage of new media, most once-dominant outlets are being rejected. But has declining ratings caused these outlets to revise their editorial policies? On the contrary, many have doubled down and made even more manifest their fairly unpopular leftist ideology.

There is currently no more compelling illustration of the potential power of the information age than the spontaneous order of The Internet. While it is credited by the media as fostering “democratic” revolutions in the Middle East, what is glaring in the laudatory media narratives is the lack of what is necessary for a people to be free under a democratic political system. The lack of an individualistic ethos dooms these revolutions to tumultuous mob warfare and future tyrannies without further enlightenment. But that appears to be the motive of the “news” media.

What is more subsumed in the culture, and precisely because it is so omnipresent, are such cultural engines as music and film. The thumping, mind-numbing music, with the nearly ubiquitous emphasis on emotion over self-control, often even promoting self-destructive, violent behavior, reinforces a nihilistic live-in-the-moment mentality that undermines the civic qualities needed for people to take care of themselves. It is significant that music is taken seriously enough by Plato to devote an extended passage to in his Republic, and New Left guru Theodore Adorno was a music critic whose work influenced radio and mass communications after the 1930s.

Films provide powerful imagery to stoke the imagination of the audience on new potentialities in human relations. Directors such as the Soviet Sergei Eisenstein and the Nazi Leni Riefenstahl were extremely influential in winning over adherents to their respective parties’ political platforms. Today, nearly all those who work in Hollywood vote Democrat, and movies are regularly churned out for mass consumption for no other discernible purpose than to undermine morality and America’s ability to project force abroad. Many kinds of demoralizing films fail to deliver high revenue, as they offend the sensibilities of a lot of Americans, but they are pumped out nonetheless.

What appears on the surface to be purely an economic crisis of spending and debt is the culmination of the moral degradation and demoralization of Americans. Many men no longer have the self-pride and responsibility needed to govern themselves in a free society. Entitlement spending is largely a proxy for how much the citizenry refuses to take care of themselves, and have outsourced self-care to the government. The frightening economic indicators we read are the signs of a people who have ideologically and morally lost their way.

One visible manifestation of the left’s successful subversion of our nation’s ideology and morality, which led us to become one of the freest and most successful nations in the history of the world, can be seen in how present-day America constantly defeats itself.  Those who are successful are condemned as “greedy,” as if their relative success came in an economic and social vacuum; we do not allow ourselves to drill for oil, even as our enemies do so off our coasts; we over-regulate and strangle our own economies, even as the government seeks to tax it more.  Ayn Rand described such a self-sacrificial ethos under the apt rubric “altruism.”

On the deepest philosophical level, the left’s ideology defies existence, refuses to acknowledge that man’s nature is life, opposes the rational thought that brought civilization into being to being with, and destroys the very language that makes the transmission of ideas possible.  Leftist philosophy is thus essentially not only anti-humanistic, but also anti-life and anti-reality. This ideology in its various expressions stands against wealth creation and self-improvement.  It is thus a self-defeating ideology destructive of human happiness, personal excellence, and non-coincidentally, national greatness.

The foundation of human civilization is the individual; as the individual goes, so goes civilization. One cannot have a great civilization comprised of non-productive, irresponsible citizens, who become a burden upon their fellow man. In order to have freedom in society, each should be free to live in a self-reliant manner within the context of civil society and a free economy. He must not be free from reality itself, as prices and wages describe, but from human coercion. Humans cannot be economically free in the absolute sense of being free from work, but rather can only be free from enslavement to other men. In order for a human being to be able to distinguish between the two states, he must be politically free to experience life directly, its risks and rewards, as a guide to leading his own life. In order to rationally engage with reality, he must be ideologically free, that is to say, enlightened.

If the New Left is able to institute its ethos of anti-humanism into our culture without vibrant and principled opposition, clearly exposing the left’s totalitarian agenda, and enunciating the real world alternatives, man will be doomed to another dark age. Only this time it will be intentionally created and reinforced using the mass communications tools that brought the state to ultimate power, and entrenched by technological advances that civilization brought to fruition. The ultimate way to defeat the left is to edify civilization ideologically and morally.

Never trust a Vegetable: Not even Joe Biden

So, there’s good old Joe Biden, swimming in a sea of Testosterone, shouting to the world that the Republicans’ opposition to Barack the Wonderful’s jobs bill is going to be the catalyst for more rapes in America. Now doesn’t that just hack your Weiner? Stand up, Joe, let ‘em see ya! Well, not all of ‘ya, just the part that rapes America.

Smokin’ Joe just doesn’t get the irony. Perhaps we should send him a box of cigars and a blue dress to help him remember just which political party’s president came closer to rape than any other chief executive in the history of our republic. Can’t you just envision Biden asking Slick Willie after the fact: “Did you get your stimulus, Bill?” We’re not just talkin’ rape here. We’re talkin’ rape rape. Like Anthony Weiner, Joe Biden is his own Wurst Enemy.

The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party routinely takes the position that sexual perversions are a-okay just as long as the perverter, so to speak, is an enlightened liberal.

Joe Biden

In other words, the Democratic party aids and abets rape, abortion, homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, fornication, voyeurism, exhibitionism, paraphilia, bigamy, public masturbation, gerbils coming out of Gere, congressmen’s roommates running homosexual prostitution rings out of their apartment, and a wide assortment of other twisted behaviors limited only by the imaginations of the most vile assortment of sexy socialists on the planet. The Democrats have no morals. Well, that’s not exactly true. They are, in fact, immoral, amoral, and Balmoral (that Scottish castle has a most unfortunate moniker).

Neal A. Maxwell correctly pegged the decline of our civilization to the decline in morality in a speech a quarter of a century ago:

Those committed to the keeping of the stern but sweet seventh commandment in a time of increasing immorality will need to be special. Average won’t do now, anymore than average was adequate in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Civilizations as well as souls are at stake. One scholar who studied dozens of civilizations forecast that in “the struggle between nations, those who cling to chastity will, in all likelihood, keep the upper hand”—and a commentator added “[because] they try to keep intact the family which promiscuity and homosexuality tend to destroy” (The Human Life Review, Spring 1978, p. 71).
—Neal A. Maxwell

There is a funny thing about morals, or the lack thereof. People (read Democrats/ Liberals / Socialists/ Communists/ Envirowacko nutjobs/ OWS freaks) who exist at the lower end of the moral spectrum simply can’t comprehend that other people can live on a higher moral plane than themselves. It is beyond their comprehension. They think that everyone on this rock spinning around the sun is just as depraved as they are. Hence, we see prominent Democrats attempting to equate conservative political positions to moral depravity… Paging Joe Biden. Paging Joe Biden. Please pick up the white courtesy telephone for the big picture. Paging Joe Biden. Paging Joe Biden…

Joe must have some hair plugs in too tight. In case Biden still doesn’t get it, this is a big effing deal. Doesn’t it just give you a little pause every time Biden accuses other people of committing rape? Doesn’t that just say something about where Biden is in his heart?

Henry Fairlie has written perceptively in his book The Seven Deadly Sins Today concerning how “the lustful person will usually be found to have a terrible hollowness at the center of his life” and about “the desert he has made of himself and his life” (Washington, D.C.: New Republic Books, 1978, p. 187). “Lust,” wrote Fairlie, “is not interested in its partners, but only in the gratification of its own craving. … Lust dies at the next dawn, and when it returns in the evening, to search where it may, it is with its own past erased” (Seven Sins, p. 175).

Those so drained by sensuality do, in fact, seek to compensate for their loneliness by sensations. However, in the arithmetic of appetite, anything multiplied by zero still totals zero!

—Neal A. Maxwell


Don’t you just get the irresistible urge to gently plink Biden on the head with a rubber mallet just to listen to the hollow sound bouncing around between his ears? Perhaps Biden has this proclivity for repeatedly saying stupid stuff simply because he is hollow, lustful, and lonely? Paging Dr. Sigmund Freud. Pick up on Line 2 for a lustful politician. Paging Dr. Sigmund Freud…

Biden’s verbal jousts hit at the core of something besides morality. The other issue at stake is honesty. Do we really believe that Biden is sincere? Now that’s entirely possible, but doubtful. Biden is a political animal. Despite his penchant for tripping all over his tongue, the fact of the matter is that Biden is perfectly aware that, stripped of all spin, he is merely sputtering lies.

The late James E. Faust, a Democrat, had this to say about honesty. Are you paying attention, Joe?

There are different shades of truth telling. When we tell little white lies, we become progressively color-blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead. The degree to which each of us tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth depends on our conscience. David Casstevens of the Dallas Morning News tells a story about Frank Szymanski, a Notre Dame center in the 1940s, who had been called as a witness in a civil suit at South Bend, Indiana.

“Are you on the Notre Dame football team this year?” the judge asked.

“Yes, Your Honor.”

“What position?”

“Center, Your Honor.”

“How good a center?”

Szymanski squirmed in his seat, but said firmly, “Sir, I’m the best center Notre Dame has ever had.”

Coach Frank Leahy, who was in the courtroom, was surprised. Szymanski always had been modest and unassuming. So when the proceedings were over, he took Szymanski aside and asked why he had made such a statement. Szymanski blushed. “I hated to do it, Coach,” he said. “But, after all, I was under oath.”

—James E. Faust


Joe Biden might as well be a cocker spaniel. After all, he has achieved that blessed state of color-blindness. Biden knows in his heart that anything said or done in an attempt to deceive is nothing but a lie. Biden’s equating of opposition to Obama’s jobs bill to rape is nothing but a lie, and Joe knows it. He won’t admit it, but he knows it.

Public virtue, which expects men to rise above self-interest and to act in the public interest with wisdom and courage, was so evident in leaders like George Washington, who, we used to declare, could never tell a lie, and Abraham Lincoln, known as “Honest Abe.” In the past few years we have seen “official after official—both on the national and the local political scene—put self-interest … above the larger public interest. …

“Men and women have … been removed from federal office and even gone to jail in our times because they exceeded the limits set by the framers [of our Constitution and God’s commandments]” (Charles A. Perry, “Religious Assumptions Undergird the Entire U. S. Constitution,” Deseret News, 27 Sept. 1987, p. A-19).

One reason for the decline in moral values is that the world has invented a new, constantly changing and undependable standard of moral conduct referred to as “situational ethics.” Now, individuals define good and evil as being adjustable according to each situation; this is in direct contrast to the proclaimed God-given absolute standard: “Thou shalt not!”—as in “Thou shalt not steal” (Ex. 20:15).
—David B. Haight

Joe Biden is a national embarrassment. He accuses his political opponents, while the truth is that he likely has an immoral heart deep inside the very essence of his soul. He shamelessly lies on the national stage, taking advantage of his high political position in the hopes that his political office will lend credence to his dishonesty. But he doesn’t seem to realize that his hopes are in vain. All he does is demean himself with his lies. The public long ago realized it made a mistake in electing Obama and Biden. Biden is history, and he knows it. But Biden intends to go down fighting. Hence the lies and the accusations on Biden’s part.

We need more integrity in government. We need to be governed by men and women who are undivided in honorable purpose, whose votes and decisions are not for sale to the highest bidder. We need as our elected and appointed officials those whose characters are unsullied, whose lives are morally clean and open, who are not devious, selfish, or weak. We need men and women of courage and honest convictions, who will stand always ready to be counted for their integrity and not compromise for expediency, lust for power, or greed; and we need a people who will appreciate and support representatives of this caliber.
—N. Eldon Tanner.


Biden is the perfect example of the type of person who shouldn’t be in public office. In November, 2012 we will have the opportunity to rectify the error.

Biden’s argument for remaining in office can be summed up thusly: Hope and change through dope and mange. All we are saying … is give fleas a chance.

America’s response to Biden’s sophist argument can be summed up as well: Do not ask for whom the bus rolls. It rolls for thee.

The Cult of Excuse

Life is not fair. Anyone who has ever dealt with a government institution knows that government is inevitably less fair. Never the less, it is effective politics to claim that life can be made fair because fairness is undefined and carries a beloved connotation. This idea of fairness has evolved into something particularly despicable recently, a cult of excuse. The obsession with victim hood has turned victimizers into victims, and has made all excuses reasons to behave inhumanely. This has eviscerated traditional morality, something the American left has tried to do since the turn of the century along with their fascist analogs in Europe.


There is a very popular opinion among those on the left and some on the very far right that the attacks of September 11th 2001 were the fault of American foreign policy. This may be effective, although ignorant, as a political argument, but morally it is complete hogwash. There simply is no fault to speak of. Terrorist chose to take a particular action in order to make a political point, an action that is, no matter what the case, wrong. America had helped Bin Laden free Afghanistan from communism, Bin Laden went after the U.S. when Kuwait refused help from him and took help from the U.S. instead. Yet besides the reality of the situation, the cult of excuse took hold, ignoring all rational political and moral realities.


A more recent event has shown that this cult of excuse is incredibly pervasive. Three hikers were picked up by Iranian authorities in Iraq and charged with spying. When the last two were finally released, they expressed an odd opinion. Although they did admit they were held unlawfully and charged with crimes they were most certainly not guilty or capable of, they placed a majority of blame on their home country, the United States. Citing American foreign policy as the reason they were held. Factually, Iran is an oppressive regime that has committed atrocities on their own people, and their behavior is a reflection of this and a reflection of the weakness and permissiveness of America’s new foreign policy of appeasement. The moral reality of this incident is simple. Iran imprisoned three innocent people on trumped up charges, which is simply wrong. The cult of excuse is so ever present that despite knowing that Iran’s actions were inexcusable, they still showed sympathies to their captures reminiscent of Stockholm syndrome.


Simply put, there is no excuse for doing what is invariably wrong. Civilization relies on this concept. Yet time and again, excuses are provided for wrong doing by third parties or by the victims themselves. What this develops is a platform by which to blame something other than the individual. Individuals, being imperfect, are happy to oblige this way of thinking. While those making the excuses use the blame that should fall on the individual as a political weapon. The victimizers are obliged to victimize more, thus creating more fodder of blame to be used politically. It works out very well for politicians, civil servants and those who have something to gain from said blame, but is utter poison to society and the victimizers’ next victim.