Yes, Petraeus’ adultery IS a scandal

Note: This was submitted to the Washington Post as a letter to the editor on November 21.

I wish I could say that Dana Milbank’s editorial was shocking departure from traditional morality. Sadly, as sexual depravity has become more and more commonplace, I cannot even do that.

It has been determined that Petraeus’ adultery presented no “risk” to national security. But the reason there are rules against it is obvious: A CIA official can easily be blackmailed by someone with knowledge of the affair. Adultery is a security risk, as we saw in the Moscow embassy scandal in the 1980’s.

But even if we could be certain that adultery would not threaten national security, it should still be prohibited for government employees for two reasons.

First, we should expect a higher standard of behavior from our public officials. They should serve as example for us of high moral character. Furthermore, if the CIA director’s wife cannot trust him, how can these United States trust him with our secrets? Answer: We cannot.

Second, rules against adultery are a merciful protection to the aggrieved spouse. In this chattering about “consenting adults” the spouse is often forgotten. But the fact remains that Petraeus has a wife who was harmed in a real way by his adultery.

Abolish the Electoral College

Steve Chapman had a thought provoking column on November 15 at Reason, and he makes a good point – it is time to scrap the Electoral College. It’s an anachronism and it has gotten to the point that it is anti-democratic.

This particular election underscored the absurdity of the system. We have a national election for President in a nation of well over 300 million people, but the election was decided by a just handful of the fifty states – because they are the “swing states” that determine the winner of the Electoral College.

The problem is that this makes the vast majority of the country irrelevant in determining the President. If you are a Democrat in a deep red county in a deep red state, what reason do you have to vote for President? If you are a Republican in a deep blue county in a deep blue state, what reason do you have to vote for President? You are tilting at windmills and your vote is not going to change anything.

Moving to a national popular vote would change that. One benefit is that it would encourage more turnout. Someone living in an area dominated by the other party may not have much hope of changing their local and state government, but their votes added to the pool of votes nationally would make a difference, joined with the votes of like-minded voters in swing counties and swing states, as well as states where your chosen party is in control.

It would also force the candidates to run a truly nationwide campaign instead of a regional campaign that focuses on ten or twelve swing states while ignoring the other forty. Republicans are not going to win California, but Republicans would be foolish not to conduct a significant get-out-the-vote effort to get California Republicans to the polls. The same could be said of Democrats in the Deep South states.

There was a lot of talk about abolishing the Electoral College after Al Gore barely won the popular vote by the slimmest of margins, but George Bush won the election by winning Florida. A significant number of Democrats would already support the proposal, so making this a bipartisan effort would make it much easier. Most voters would approve of the idea that they are voting for the President directly instead of indirectly.

If we’re going to elect a President of the whole country, then let’s have a truly nationwide campaign instead of having the candidates only focus on a few states while either taking the rest of the states for granted or writing them off as unwinnable. We are not the same country we were when the Electoral College was implemented, and now is the time to move past it.

Susan Rice is too corrupt to be the SOS

Without evidence of corruption or gross incompetence, the President should have the ability to appoint whoever they want for positions in their administration. The Senate may reserve the right to block a nominee, but most of them should go forward. This is why I think it was a mistake for Republicans to block IU law professor Dawn Johnsen. Her extremism may be repugnant, but she is cut from the same ideological cloth as Barack Obama and would only implement her employer’s agenda.

This is not the case with Susan Rice, who Obama wants to appoint as Secretary of State. Here’ we have clear evidence of corruption, broadcast worldwide two months ago and preserved on the Internet for history. Rice went on the Sunday talk show circuit the weekend after the terrorist attack and flagrantly lied about the attack, pretending it was a protest over a video that got out of control when it was obvious from the very beginning that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack to coincide with the anniversary of the war crimes of 9/11.

I keep hearing these conspiracy theories about the Benghazi attack, about how Obama did this, or didn’t do that, and so forth. We can dismiss each and every one of these theories and still have more than enough evidence of corruption to deny Rice the honor of serving as Secretary of State. The fact that she knowingly and intentionally lied to the American people about what really happened in Benghazi is more than enough evidence to block her nomination.

On top of the lies, this scandal exposes the anti-American agenda of the Obama regime. Obama desperately tried to blame this pre-planned terrorist attack on Muslim anger over a silly YouTube video, deflecting blame from the terrorists and placing blame on someone exercising his First Amendment rights. It was obvious from the beginning that the angry protests had nothing to do with the video, and that the video was simply an excuse to push for a ban on all criticism of Islam. Our President actually sided with the terrorists against free speech. This attitude cannot be rewarded!

Of course, because Rice is a black woman (because that apparently excuses being a liar) we are hearing the usual shrill screeching about racism and sexism. Give me a break. Her sex and skin pigmentation are irrelevant. This is an issue of character, and she has shown a clear lack of character by lying to the American people. The architects of the Benghazi cover up should not be rewarded with high positions of prestige in our government. The American people deserve better than that.

Thoughts on the CIA adultery scandal

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. — Proverbs 6:32

The fall of General David Petraeus due to his adultery with Paula Broadwell can be an example of how sexual sin can destroy lives, but our increasingly depraved culture sees it as a way to tear down our standards for behavior. We have seen this in Rachel Maddow’s uncharacteristically dim-witted comments about this being a “private” matter and a shallow editorial in the Washington Post.

Why does this matter? Even if you set aside the issue of morality in public service, this was a national security risk – Petraeus could have easily been blackmailed with the threat of exposing the affair. Petraeus is an honorable man and would most likely not give in to blackmail, but why take that risk? Does anyone remember the “sex for secrets” scandal in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1986? More recently, young Russian spy Anna Chapman was found to be attempting to use her aesthetic gifts to get information for her government.

Of course, the national security risk presented by this scandal is not the only reason it was right and proper for Petraeus to step down as head of the CIA. As Americans, we should expect a higher standard of morality by those in positions of authority. It is a good thing that adultery is a criminal offense in our military. This lets our soldiers know that they must hold themselves to a high standard and is a merciful protection for the wives of adulterous soldiers. The Petraeus adultery scandal should not be an opportunity to destroy this godly standard.

I do agree with agree that it is wrong to sympathize with Petraeus while condemning Broadwell as some sort of seductress. Petraeus knew what he was doing was evil (yes, evil) and the scorn should fall much more harshly on him than on his mistress, because of his position of authority.

Adultery is a terrible and destructive thing. The national security dangers of high officials committing adultery and the moral corruption it brings is more than enough reason to keep our high standards for both our military and our high government officials.

Thanksgiving 2012

A few verses from God’s holy Word for Thanksgiving:

♣ Give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people. — 1 Chronicles 16:8


♣ Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name. — Psalm 18:49


♣ Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. — Psalm 30:4


♣ Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks, unto thee do we give thanks: for that thy name is near thy wondrous works declare. — Psalm 75:1


♣ Praise ye the LORD. O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. — Psalm 106:1


♣ But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. — 1 Corinthians 15:57


♣ Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. — 2 Corinthians 2:14


♣ Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. — Philippians 4:6


♣ And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. — Colossians 3:17


♣ In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. — 1 Thessalonians 5:18

Abortion and the Republican Party

Republicans do not need to “moderate” our position on abortion, nor do we need to become pro-choice in order to reach out to women voters. We hear this canard after every election, even after the huge red tide in 2010 that saw Republicans not only take the U.S. House of Representatives, but also state legislatures and governors. After all, winning elections nationwide is a sure sign of a party in trouble!

The theory that our position on abortion is hurting us with women assumes that there are either no pro-life women (which much of the rhetoric on this issue would lead you to believe) or that the number of pro-life women is very small. That is simply not the case. National Review pointed out in August that a Gallup poll found that women are narrowly pro-life by a margin of 46% to 44%. That may not be a majority, but it is a plurality. Furthermore, there is a consistent overall pro-life majority in the Gallup poll on the issue.

In fact, over 50% consistently say that abortion should be legal only “under certain circumstances” – a position that is certainly opposed to the radical abortion-on-demand philosophy of the Democratic Party. In fact, depending on what those “certain circumstances” are, many of those likely hold an effectively pro-life position.

There were two problems that abortion presented for us in 2012.

First, we failed to articulate our position on the issue. One US Senate candidate lost after an anti-factual and unscientific statement on abortion and rape, for which he was pounded relentlessly for months. Another candidate lost after bringing predestination theology into the debate, which most voters are not spiritually discerning enough to understand. (He was defeated by a Democrat who campaigned as a “pro-life” candidate.) Yet another candidate showed he was intellectually incapable of explaining himself on the issue.

Second, our presidential candidate was wishy-washy. Mitt Romney went out of his way to describe himself as a “moderate” opponent of abortion, emphasizing his support for exceptions. Romney also failed to attack Obama for his pro-abortion extremism. If the Republican establishment thought Obama’s defense of infanticide was played out (it wasn’t, by the way) they could have ripped into him for forcing Christian organizations to fund abortifacient drugs.

Meanwhile, Obama exploited Romney’s wishy-washy stance by making his pro-abortion position clear in no uncertain terms. The contrast between the Democrats’ position and the Republicans’ wishy-washy position was striking.

We are a pro-life country, overall. Much of this is due to improved medical technology that has been exploited by anti-abortion organizations. We may not be ready for an immediate national ban on abortion (though banning it incrementally is certainly politically possible) but the American people are far closer to the Republicans than the unhinged extremism of Barack Obama and the Democrats.

No corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood

The following is an open letter to the Monroe County Council. See my post from earlier this year with links to other articles I have written about the repeated grants to Planned Parenthood.

——– Original Message ——–

From: Scott Tibbs <tibbs1973@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 9:42 PM

To: vkelson@co.monroe.in.us; rlangley@co.monroe.in.us; mhawk@co.monroe.in.us; henegareads@co.monroe.in.us; rdietz@co.monroe.in.us; gmckim@co.monroe.in.us; councilorthomas@gmail.com

Subject: No corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood

Councilors,

I am writing you once again to oppose the grant request for Planned Parenthood of Indiana. I was very encouraged a year ago when PP was not invited to present to the social services funding committee, and further encouraged when the City Council, for the first time since 1999, actually rejected Planned Parenthood’s request for a handout. I hope this marks a new era in fiscal responsibility for local government.

First, let’s get to the real reason Planned Parenthood is asking for another $5,000 handout from county government – they are seeking a political endorsement. Planned Parenthood does not need the money. Not only does the national office as well as all PP affiliates combine for a healthy profit (and have for many years) Planned Parenthood of Indiana reported 15,292,802 in total revenue and 14,947 ,209 in total operating expenses – more than enough to cover a $5,000 grant for the Bloomington branch.

The fact of the matter is that there are legitimately local charities that do not have the backing of a national corporation that have requested money from you. These legitimately local charities are much more in need of your limited funds for community service grants than Planned Parenthood, and every time PP gets a grant from local government they are denying the funds to truly local charities. This is cynical political gamesmanship at its worst.

Yes, Planned Parenthood does some good things. They also murder babies every Thursday. Because of this, many of the people who pay your salary as a county councilor have deep moral objections to having their money confiscated by force and given to people who murder babies, even when that money is not going directly to the murders committed every week, just four blocks south of the Monroe County Courthouse. When you factor in the fact that Planned Parenthood does not need this money, it is even more egregious.

Thank you for your time.

Abortion in the case of rape

Bloomington Herald-Times, November 17, 2012. (Comments.)

To the editor:

If abortion is banned, should there be an exception for pregnancies caused by rape? We have seen much debate about this in recent months. I respectfully submit that our focus is wrong. The question is not whether there should be an exception for rape.

The question is whether abortion should be banned at all. That question can only be answered by understanding what the fetus actually is.

If the fetus us a human being with an inalienable right to life, then we cannot allow abortion. Morally speaking, the willful and intentional termination of that life is murder.

If abortion is murder, then it is simply not logical to allow an unborn baby to be executed for the crimes of his or her father, just as it would be illogical to allow five year old children to be executed for the crimes of their fathers.

Biology tells us that the fetus is a separate organism from the mother. We know from ultrasounds as well as photographs of aborted fetuses that it is a human being.

God says in Jeremiah 32:35 that infant sacrifice is so evil it never entered His mind. What would He say about the millions killed by abortion?