Not all evangelicals pick unethical leaders. But Bush and Huckabee are two cases in point that evangelicals who have supported them need to think about. Do evangelicals recognize that they are constricted by ethics in who they can pick as political leaders? Do they look at the ethical behavior of those they support? Vote for their re-election after their ethical lapses as leaders have been exposed?
Its been documented that Mike Huckabee did the following.
- Took money in the form of gifts.
- Pardoned, commuted, pressured parole for dangerous murderers and persisted in it despite years of being given evidence of why he should stop.
- Has lied repeatedly on what his position on amnesty really is.
- Has used unethical means to undermine his political opponents, e.g. Romney.
- Was profligate with the wealth of the state of Arkansas.
George Bush has done several of those things but substituted others as well.
- Bush took the side of Saudi Arabia from 2000 onwards. The Saudis had helped him financially earlier in his career.
- Bush allowed Pakistan to keep nukes and North Korea to develop them while pursuing a nation building exercise in Iraq.
- Bush has engaged in profligate spending.
- Bush has failed to enforce the laws and supported immigration amnesty.
- Bush has allowed continued Chinese and Indian immigration despite espionage cases where these immigrants have stolen the B-2 or warhead technology or night vision.
- Allowed the giving away of know-how to foreign lands.
- Allowed our factories to go overseas in time of war.
- Not built up the military in size in time of war.
- Allowed immigration from hostile lands or those not interested in US interests during time of war.
- Persisted in trade treaties to the disadvantage of US industry in time of war.
- Undermined bargaining power of workers and allowed median wages to remain stagnant and even fall in his second administration.
Voting for a leader because he mimes you effectively while picking your or others pockets is not ethical citizenship. A citizen has an obligation to do their homework. That includes studying numbers and graphs on government, university, journalist, think-tank, etc. web pages. That includes information on immigration at the census, much of which has been repackaged into tables and graphs by Steven A. Camarota and others at CIS and Edwin Rubenstein at Vdare.
See in particular Camarota’s piece on welfare dependency written in 2007. See Table 13 of that article for welfare dependency ratios. 50 percent of Mexicans in the US get welfare. 50 percent are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. Evangelicals have an obligation to learn this information.
Evangelicals have an obligation to inform themselves on the Wright Island Model, that one way migration causes genetic replacement, not a mixture in the end, but replacement.
“We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.”
As pointed out in a previous post:
The theorem doesn’t say you get a mixture of old and new. The theorem says you get complete replacement of the old by the new. The old goes extinct. This is pure genetic replacement. It doesn’t matter if there is an intermediate mixture or not. Over time, the initial stock is replaced completely. Promises of a mixture are false.
This means all immigration must stop. That includes asylum, refugees, etc. World population is too large and this is supported in part by activities of evangelicals. They are pushing up the population of the most violent and lowest IQ. They have an obligation to be stewards of the earth, not destroy it. They have an obligation to consequences. They need to acknowledge an ethics of consequences. They can’t break America or break the earth and then say God owns it.
“Demographic Fatigue Overwhelms Third World Governments.” Who is funding that demographic fatigue? The first world. Some of those are evangelicals, others are liberals.
The Demographic Transition Revisited:
Lessons for Foreign Aid and U.S. Immigration
Virginia Abernethy, Ph.D.
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry
Nashville, TN 37232
Between the end of World War II and 1970 fertility rates rose virtually everywhere in the third world.
Africa, which has received more in foreign aid per capita than any other continent, has the highest fertility rate in the world–about six children per woman. It was not always so: In the 1950s, fertility in Africa averaged about one-half child less per woman than in South America.
Multinational aid and liberal immigration policies work at crosspurposes with their stated goals because they dispel motivation to exercise caution and restraint. Family size targets stay high or rise when people think that environmental limits which formerly operated have been relieved; so a perceived windfall of resources or emigration opportunity frequently results in a population explosion in the region supposedly being helped. Conversely, declining fertility–where it has occurred–is linked to deteriorating expectations and to the absence of an emigration option.
Aid causes fertility to rise, it doesn’t decrease it. The option to emigrate from the third world to the first world also causes higher fertility there, and lower fertility here.
Third world IQ is lower than in the developed world, often averaging around 85. This is genetic. Bringing them here brings violence, failing schools, and an end to civilization. Evangelicals who break America and thus the world and say God owns it after they break it are not following ethics. Religion has been misused this way since the dawn of time. Religion that is used to do what you want and say God owns the consequences is not ethical. Do what you want and let God fix it later is the morality of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was that type of thinking that made God want to start over with the flood in the Bible. But that is exactly the thinking some evangelicals practice in their citizenship duties.
Not all evangelicals do this. Chuck Baldwin is someone who fights against this viewpoint. But those who have engaged in this need to recognize what they have done, acknowledge it and change.
Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence.
Evangelicals must not break America and the world by ignoring the consequences of their actions. Destroying the world because it makes you feel good at the time is not ethical.
Vanishing American has a powerful and well written article above. The following comment was posted there by me and is reposted here.
By the 1950′s, America had built up the greatest fund of moral, political, physical, industrial, scientific, and social capital in world history. Liberals then flushed it down the drain in a huge party. The work of millenia in America and Europe allowed them to ignore reality and pretend to be morally superior to all the generations that built up that capital against the lies and partying of those who wanted to dissipate it in centuries past.
As you have pointed out, being nice to liberals when they destroy the heritage of the generations past is not being good. We do wrong when we say what liberals want us to say. We do wrong to ourselves, to the past and to the future. Liberals are engaging in an extended 60′s party. It wasn’t just the young, but Johnson, who grew long hair after the presidency, who wanted to engage in this give away of everything. The result is that nothing will survive unless they are stopped. Saying this is necessary to stop it. It won’t just happen. To be stopped by fear is to enable it to happen.