Madeline Crabb
Elections: Men and morals
By Madeline Crabb
Morality is the most important issue that needs to be discussed at this critical moment of decision just before the election. For far too long we have opted for those who are in our favorite political party, or those who say the most impressive things (only to do just the opposite), instead of choosing the best candidates based on their morals.
The media "talking heads" and other liberal elitists tell us that because of recent scandals, Republicans have lost their "moral authority" and don't deserve control of the House and Senate. Yes, there are some serious problems with some members of both houses — the Democrats are not innocent lambs.
On his radio program last week, John Gibson said that in congressional scandals over the past 40 years, the culprits were predominantly Democrats. You see, lack of character, and sin, are not respecters of political parties.
A bit of scandal history
Perhaps we need to go back in time. I can't help but remember one of the biggest scandals during my life that involves a sitting senator. Can anyone say Chappaquiddick? Even though Mary Jo Kopechne's death was an accident, Ted Kennedy should have been charged with manslaughter, according to Massachusetts' law. But instead of the senator serving time in the slammer, he's serving in the Senate.
Was there moral outrage? Was there a call for Senator Kennedy to resign? Oh there may have been a few peeps here and there. But Bobby Kennedy had just been killed the year before this incident; and like today, everyone felt sorry for the Kennedy family and all their tragedy. So because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings, another crime is overlooked.
Perhaps some of us can remember how liberal elitists continued to support a recent former president, even when they knew he was an adulterer who liked lots of women, even those who were young enough to be his daughter — or is that granddaughter. Remember, character doesn't matter. There were another couple of womanizing presidents in the 60's, also part of the liberal crowd.
But these same people who are willing to overlook major indiscretions and crimes now call for Speaker Dennis Hastert's head on a platter for allowing Foley's homosexual behavior. (Remember, Foley's "behavior" consisted of "over-friendly" emails to teenage pages.)
While I think Foley's behavior is reprehensible, I believe such predatory behavior is wrong 100% of the time, in every setting and circumstance — not just in the hallowed halls of Congress. But it seems interesting that everyone capitalizes on Foley's actions, but they say nothing about the teen's behavior.
It takes two to tango
Yes, we are talking about a teenager. But in this instance, the young man was responding to Foley's overtures, was apparently enjoying the attention, and willingly participated in the written sexual bantering. Has anyone considered that since a congressional page is usually an above average student, he would have enough sense to report unwanted "attention" to an elder or a parent? Or he could have deleted the email messages, not responding to them, like we all do on a daily basis with our junk mail. No, it is not his fault that he was being solicited, but he has been taught that homosexuality is a good thing, perhaps the preferred "lifestyle," and that "one out of every ten students is a homosexual." So just what was he doing wrong, if what he's being taught is so right? And taking this argument to the logical conclusion, what was Foley doing wrong? After all, he was just doing "what comes naturally" to homosexuals who claim they "are born that way" and have certain "natural urges and desires."
Furthermore, this teen has also been taught how to use condoms, or have "safe sex," among many other repulsive things, starting in kindergarten. We are allowing this to be taught to our children in the government indoctrination centers, I mean, schools. (Some research by we the "sheeple" would probably cause a revolution if we learned what's really being taught. For enlightenment try www.MassResistance.com .)
On the one hand we say the teenage page is old enough to make decisions about sexual matters. There are lots of "high fives" over teenage boys getting seduced by sexy, perverted women schoolteachers. Ruth Bader Ginsberg wants the age of consent lowered to 12. But then we call Foley a pedophile because he is preying on young boys. Can anyone say hypocrisy?
Our responsibility
In reality, we all know that children are being sexualized at very early ages. We also know that even teens are too young to understand all the ramifications involved with sex, making it convenient to blame the perpetrator. I submit that we the people must take some responsibility for what is being taught to our children. We keep electing people devoid of moral character, and those bent on social experimentation, and place them in positions where they make laws affecting every area of our lives — including the brainwashing of our children. And then when these "children" are put into situations like the congressional page, and they are seduced or fail to report the letches, the liberal elitists act morally outraged. Oh please... They are the ones who have led us down this path to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The "free love," "anti- military/anti-war," and "anti-establishment" folks of the 60's, those Rush Limbaugh calls the "long-hair, maggot-infested, dope-smoking hippies" now run our media, our universities, and unfortunately, our government. They are outside the mainstream of America, but they have the power. In government, they have the power because we have given it to them.
While we must vote for individuals, these people represent major parties that are as different as night and day. Since 85% of Americans claim to be Christians, one would think elections would overwhelmingly go in favor of conservative candidates.
It actually makes me a little nervous telling people to "vote their values" because far too many people have fallen into the "politically-correct" mentality that seems to accept everything. Increasingly we forget there are moral absolutes. Then there are those who vote for whoever promises them the most "pork" — the what's-in-it-for-me folks.
In this election, we determine who will control Congress, and therefore, the future of our nation. As a nation we must put emotions aside and soberly consider which party best represents our moral values. Moreover, we must consider what God would have us to do. For far too long we have turned our collective back on God and watched as society's morals have disintegrated. We can't afford to turn away any longer. Let's make God's values our values, and then vote accordingly. There will be judgment on this nation at some point if we don't begin to do the right thing. To anyone willing to hear....
© Madeline Crabb
Morality is the most important issue that needs to be discussed at this critical moment of decision just before the election. For far too long we have opted for those who are in our favorite political party, or those who say the most impressive things (only to do just the opposite), instead of choosing the best candidates based on their morals.
The media "talking heads" and other liberal elitists tell us that because of recent scandals, Republicans have lost their "moral authority" and don't deserve control of the House and Senate. Yes, there are some serious problems with some members of both houses — the Democrats are not innocent lambs.
On his radio program last week, John Gibson said that in congressional scandals over the past 40 years, the culprits were predominantly Democrats. You see, lack of character, and sin, are not respecters of political parties.
A bit of scandal history
Perhaps we need to go back in time. I can't help but remember one of the biggest scandals during my life that involves a sitting senator. Can anyone say Chappaquiddick? Even though Mary Jo Kopechne's death was an accident, Ted Kennedy should have been charged with manslaughter, according to Massachusetts' law. But instead of the senator serving time in the slammer, he's serving in the Senate.
Was there moral outrage? Was there a call for Senator Kennedy to resign? Oh there may have been a few peeps here and there. But Bobby Kennedy had just been killed the year before this incident; and like today, everyone felt sorry for the Kennedy family and all their tragedy. So because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings, another crime is overlooked.
Perhaps some of us can remember how liberal elitists continued to support a recent former president, even when they knew he was an adulterer who liked lots of women, even those who were young enough to be his daughter — or is that granddaughter. Remember, character doesn't matter. There were another couple of womanizing presidents in the 60's, also part of the liberal crowd.
But these same people who are willing to overlook major indiscretions and crimes now call for Speaker Dennis Hastert's head on a platter for allowing Foley's homosexual behavior. (Remember, Foley's "behavior" consisted of "over-friendly" emails to teenage pages.)
While I think Foley's behavior is reprehensible, I believe such predatory behavior is wrong 100% of the time, in every setting and circumstance — not just in the hallowed halls of Congress. But it seems interesting that everyone capitalizes on Foley's actions, but they say nothing about the teen's behavior.
It takes two to tango
Yes, we are talking about a teenager. But in this instance, the young man was responding to Foley's overtures, was apparently enjoying the attention, and willingly participated in the written sexual bantering. Has anyone considered that since a congressional page is usually an above average student, he would have enough sense to report unwanted "attention" to an elder or a parent? Or he could have deleted the email messages, not responding to them, like we all do on a daily basis with our junk mail. No, it is not his fault that he was being solicited, but he has been taught that homosexuality is a good thing, perhaps the preferred "lifestyle," and that "one out of every ten students is a homosexual." So just what was he doing wrong, if what he's being taught is so right? And taking this argument to the logical conclusion, what was Foley doing wrong? After all, he was just doing "what comes naturally" to homosexuals who claim they "are born that way" and have certain "natural urges and desires."
Furthermore, this teen has also been taught how to use condoms, or have "safe sex," among many other repulsive things, starting in kindergarten. We are allowing this to be taught to our children in the government indoctrination centers, I mean, schools. (Some research by we the "sheeple" would probably cause a revolution if we learned what's really being taught. For enlightenment try www.MassResistance.com .)
On the one hand we say the teenage page is old enough to make decisions about sexual matters. There are lots of "high fives" over teenage boys getting seduced by sexy, perverted women schoolteachers. Ruth Bader Ginsberg wants the age of consent lowered to 12. But then we call Foley a pedophile because he is preying on young boys. Can anyone say hypocrisy?
Our responsibility
In reality, we all know that children are being sexualized at very early ages. We also know that even teens are too young to understand all the ramifications involved with sex, making it convenient to blame the perpetrator. I submit that we the people must take some responsibility for what is being taught to our children. We keep electing people devoid of moral character, and those bent on social experimentation, and place them in positions where they make laws affecting every area of our lives — including the brainwashing of our children. And then when these "children" are put into situations like the congressional page, and they are seduced or fail to report the letches, the liberal elitists act morally outraged. Oh please... They are the ones who have led us down this path to Sodom and Gomorrah.
The "free love," "anti- military/anti-war," and "anti-establishment" folks of the 60's, those Rush Limbaugh calls the "long-hair, maggot-infested, dope-smoking hippies" now run our media, our universities, and unfortunately, our government. They are outside the mainstream of America, but they have the power. In government, they have the power because we have given it to them.
While we must vote for individuals, these people represent major parties that are as different as night and day. Since 85% of Americans claim to be Christians, one would think elections would overwhelmingly go in favor of conservative candidates.
It actually makes me a little nervous telling people to "vote their values" because far too many people have fallen into the "politically-correct" mentality that seems to accept everything. Increasingly we forget there are moral absolutes. Then there are those who vote for whoever promises them the most "pork" — the what's-in-it-for-me folks.
In this election, we determine who will control Congress, and therefore, the future of our nation. As a nation we must put emotions aside and soberly consider which party best represents our moral values. Moreover, we must consider what God would have us to do. For far too long we have turned our collective back on God and watched as society's morals have disintegrated. We can't afford to turn away any longer. Let's make God's values our values, and then vote accordingly. There will be judgment on this nation at some point if we don't begin to do the right thing. To anyone willing to hear....
© Madeline Crabb
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
