The Moral Delinquency of Our Society

Gus R Stelzer>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>///\\\<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<9/22/98

Recent events have brought into question the moral integrity of William Clinton and whether he is qualified to be our President. Much has already been said about the Monica Lewinsky affair, so I shall not comment on it here except to say that this sordid matter alone disqualifies Clinton to be our nation's leader. If he had any moral integrity he would resign and not put our country through the wrenching process of impeachment. Having said that, allow me to move on the more important question of how this relates to the moral posture of our society at large, for in the long run, in a democracy, we get the king of leadership we put up with.

A substantial share of our society suggests that Clinton's sexual dalliances, and his lies, are "no big deal" because he is a "good" president and "the economy is good". Neither is sound rationale for the simple reason that it implies "the end justifies the means regardless of how immoral the means may be". If such rationale has merit Willie Sutton should be pardoned for robbing banks "because that's where the money is", and corporate CEOs should not be indicted for price fixing if the firm is making money for its stockholders. Grantland Rice, the eminent sports writer put it this way: "It is not whether you won or lost, but how you played the game". There is such a thing as right and wrong.

Any person who cheats on his spouse, and then lies about it, will probably cheat and lie about other things, too, and is not to be trusted. As a senior executive in America's largest corporation, with responsibility over thousands of employees, I saw ample evidence to support that conclusion.

Clinton's tendency to lie, to shade the truth, to deceive, and to endorse policies and behaviors of questionable moral standing, did not start with Lewinsky or Paula Jones. It was his modus operandi long before he became President. He didn't gain the moniker of "Slick Willie" without cause. He is the quintessential con man.

As regards a "good economy", I cannot think of a thing that Clinton did to bring that about. To the contrary he engaged in numerous act that subtracted from our economy. In 1993 he pushed through a $250 billion tax increase, which every honest economist agrees is not the way to expand an economy, and then he lied about its details prior to passage, and again in his state-of-the-union address in February, 1994. He said "the rate of tax increase would affect only those in the top 1% income bracket" even though over 4,000,000 senior citizens who were not in the top 1% bracket were required to pay up to $1,600 higher taxes annually.

In his 1992 campaign Clinton expressed opposition to NAFTA, the GATT/WTO and MFN-for-China, but as soon as he entered the White House he pressured Congress to enact them and had cabinet officers (like Mickey Kantor) lie about their potential benefits. Not one of their claims bore fruit.

Instead, thousands of U.S. factories closed and moved to other countries for the specific purpose of evading our laws while still sharing in our markets. Those who abide by our laws became victims of those who evade our laws. That is the legacy of Clinton trade policies that violate moral ethics, as well as U.S. Constitution, notably the "equal protection" clause of the 14^th Amendment. Thus, it turns out, Clinton defaulted on his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution". On that score alone Clinton should be impeached.

The fact that such a call has not been heard tells us that the decline of morality is not limited to the White House. It permeates, not only our political system, but our entire society which eagerly purchases $1 trillion a year of imported goods made under conditions that violate American laws. For a "mess of pottage" consumers sold their own moral souls, and that of their country, thereby causing this once greatest creditor nation to become the world's biggest debtor.

Since Clinton entered the White House our trade deficits have more than doubled and millions of American have lost, or been deprived of, decent jobs. This year our trade deficits will exceed $260 billion...three times worse than in George Bush's final year. This translates into a loss of $1 trillion in national income, $500 billion in lost tax revenue, and forfeiture of 5 million jobs. Surely, his trade policies have not contributed to a "strong economy". Yet Clinton, and his surrogates, continue to lie about its "benefits" while asking Congress to surrender to him, via fast track, the duty of Congress to regulate trade (another violation of the Constitution) so he can extend NAFTA-type deals to all Latin and African nations.

The prevailing perception that the rise in stock market share values is a reflection of a strong economy has it all backwards. The fact is that our economy is relatively strong because of highly inflated stock values that pumped huge sums of money into consumer markets. The primary contributors to this phenomenon are major reductions in interest rates by the Federal Reserve Board and enactment of 401K retirement accounts for which Clinton cannot claim credit.

The clouds on the horizon are ominous. In September, 1929, share prices were 3.5 times greater that actual corporate book values, and dividend returns averages only 2.5% vs. A traditional average of 4.5% The following month, October, 1929, the market crashed and triggered the Great Depression of the 1930s. Average share prices are now 7 times greater than actual book value. Some, like Microsoft, are priced at 18 times, or more, greater than book value. Dividend returns average barely 1%. Share price are at least 50% "blue sky" bordering on a Ponzi pyramid scheme. Experts warn that the global financial system is more precarious than any time in a half century and share values could crash by up to 50% with devastating consequences. In the meantime, millions of people have "cashed in" their capital gains, of borrowed against them, to purchase new homes, luxury cars, designer clothes, etc.. That is what has fueled our economy. But it is all built on quick sand.

From the very onset of his administration Clinton promoted the immoral agenda of homosexuality, even though that deviant behavior violates natural law and has been the primary cause of the premature death of over 300,000 American men, women and children, while shortening life spans by thirty years and causing billions of dollars in medical costs at taxpayer expense.

He encouraged abortions and infanticide, which are the consequence of sex acts more irresponsible and immoral than actions that sent many to prison. His policies produced the lowest military morale in memory. He authorized a missile strike against Sudan on an unfounded premise that a pharmaceutical plant made weapons of "mass destruction", while also violating Pakistan air space in a missile strike against Afghanistan...both of which are viewed as attempts to offset negative reaction to his sexual delinquencies and lies.

One could go on with a long list of Clinton "wrongs", but, surely, it is not necessary to spell it all out.

Clinton's dilemma recalls what happened to Al Capone. Authorities couldn't bring that gangster to justice for racketeering, and murder, but he finally went to prison on a lesser charge of income tax evasion. Clinton's many departures from proper conduct have now culminated in a cheap, tawdry sexual affair, and subsequent lies, that violated basic moral principles and the Presidency itself. His "modus operandi" finally caught up with him.

Yet, many in our society stridently, even incoherently, defend him. This prompted James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family, to say: "Our greatest problem is not in the Oval Office. It is with the people of this land! We have lost our ability to discern the difference between right and wrong."

For over four decades we have witnessed a decline in moral standards. We are adrift in a moral vacuum without a compass. We have record levels of sexual promiscuity, pregnancies and abortions among school children. Public schools hand out condoms to teenagers (at taxpayer expense) as though sex is OK as long as it is "safe". Children in elementary grades are told that homosexuality is an "acceptable, alternative lifestyle". Foul language is ingrained in our lexicon. Murders are common place in schools. Weapon detectors and armed guards are part of school environment. Needles are given to drug addicts at taxpayer expense.

In the meantime, academic standards are among the worst in the developed world. The sad part is that while there is much hand-wringing about poor results in basic subjects like math, science, writing, geography, and history, no one is measuring our students on the most important subject of all: The ability to tell the difference between right and wrong in matters of morality.

Instead, students are told not to be "judgmental...all discrimination is wrong...there are no moral absolutes...we must be tolerant...don't let anyone tell you what your moral standard should be...everything can be rationalized".

After having immersed our children in a value-less swamp for over 40 years, it should be no surprise that, as adults, an alarming number cannot distinguish right from wrong. It is reflected not only in sexual degradation, but also in the financial, business, foreign policy, political, legal, entertainment and media sectors...indeed, even among religious leaders. It finds its consequences in millions of abortions each year, high divorce rates, the scarring of young minds and emotions, and the notion that anything is OK if there is no law against it, or if you seek "forgiveness".

To say that we must not be "judgmental" and that "all discrimination is wrong" is outrageously irresponsible. Discrimination is the proper process for distinguishing good from evil...excellence from mediocrity...right from wrong. As a consequence of four decades in which our society, beginning with our children, have been urged to be "tolerant", it is not surprising that a high percentage of people will "tolerate" almost anything, including the moral bankruptcy of our own President.

So I must ask a question: "Who bears the responsibility for this sad state of affairs?"

While various forces must share blame, it is now clear that the primary catalyst is a public education system which has deliberately banned anything that smacks of religious origin, including the Ten Commandments which set the moral guidelines for thousands of years. In a gross distortion of First Amendment guarantees of "free exercise of religion and free speech", atheists and agnostics took control of the minds of our children through our public schools. Indeed, that was the objective of Karl Marx and John Dewey all along.

For over two generations, these graduates of our public education system entered the fields of journalism, entertainment, commerce, psychiatry, jurisprudence, politics...even religion. They contaminated each of these societal branches with an inability to "judge" or "discriminate" as to what is morally right of wrong.

Albert Einstein once said: "Everything is related to everything else". So, as we connect all the dots, we find that the moral delinquency of the man who now occupies the White House, and that of his defenders, can be traced to the moral bankruptcy of our public education system.

If there remains any doubt about the merit of vouchers so parents can send their children to any school of their choice, including parochial, Bill Clinton's defenders stand as prima facie evidence that the time is now long past due.

**************************************************************************