Morals and the Left

I  am going to ask a serious question and I don’t want people to just think “of course” or “of course not” because I’m really not sure. And when I speak about liberals or conservatives, they are generalities. There are many conservatives who are also steadfast libertarians, so they might have different views than religious conservatives. That being said…

First, think about morals. Morals are basically what is acceptable by people in a culture or not; basically the difference between right and wrong. So my question is:

Do liberals have morals? And if so, what are they; or where is the line?

The timing of me asking this is because of the gay marriage debate. I have argued that I support homosexuals having legal rights like filing dual tax returns and hospital bedside visitation, but not be “married.” I have even suggested that states should begin issuing “civil union licenses” and let churches deal with marriage. I thought this was a good compromise, but wasn’t enough for some of my liberal friends.

Then I thought about the term “pro-choice.” I’m for all kinds of choice. But I think liberals are actually “pro-abortion,” not “pro-choice.” This is a very important distinction. I have 2 daughters. When they are old enough to date, I hope they choose to go one group dates. I hope they choose to not get in the back seat of a car. I hope they decide not to engage in sex. I hope if they fail to make those choices they at least choose to use condoms. Those are all choices. Make the right choice in any of those and an unwanted pregnancy won’t occur 99.7% of the time (or whatever the failure rate of condoms and the pregnancies that occur due to that is.) But those are all choices. They are all moral choices: do you personally think it is right or wrong to do those things?

When a woman is raped, the choice was taken away, same with incest. So the choice to abort that fetus is the only choice the woman is given. So that becomes their choice. But at least at that point they would have a choice.

Liberals, in general, are opposed to the death penalty. But when it comes to potential lives, they are ok with aborting a fetus that in most circumstances will become a person within just a matter of months. But some guy in Connecticut who breaks into a house, kills a wife and her kids after raping the females, dismembers the bodies, etc., this guy somehow deserves to continue breathing.

Even when it comes to the morality of poor people there seems to be a big difference between conservatives and liberals. I think conservatives want to help people who can’t help themselves, but liberals seem to want everyone to get help no matter what their station is. I had a friend who argued that a farmer in Nebraska making $20K a year should have the same insurance as a hedge fund manager who makes $1M a year. Why should they both get the same insurance? Because it’s fair. What’s fair about it? Is it fair to take money away from the rich guy and give it to the poor farmer? Liberals seem to think so. And, be clear about this, we aren’t talking about health care, we are talking about insurance. I don’t think it’s realistic for everyone to get the same care simply because doctors are people and therefore have different abilities. My doctor here in Alabama might be great, but if I need a very specific spinal surgery that only a handful of doctors in the US can perform, well, I might not get the “BEST” care available. Do I want the best care? Sure. But I also understand that just isn’t possible in every circumstance.

The past year has seen the Occupy movement say that there needs to be fairness for everyone when it comes to finances. That sounds like a moral argument. Everyone should play by the same rules. That is what they say. But if you were to ask what those rules are, they seem to say that the rich need to have their money taken away and given to the poor. How is that moral? By that argument the only moral thing would be to be a truly Marxist society where each person is given what they need. Everyone works, everyone succeeds. I guess if you want to argue for that system you can. I just have a hard time believing that human nature allows everyone to work as hard as they can and that they will only take what they need.

I also wonder about the moral stance of immigration. Wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could come to the United States and have the same freedoms we have here? Well, sure. But it simply won’t happen. But you know what could happen? People in other countries could demand from their leaders to have the same freedom and rights that Americans have (or at least had in the past, but that’s a different argument.) Most liberals say that everyone in America should have the right to be here, how they got here be damned. But if your first act in coming to this country was by definition breaking the law, how can you morally say that they should stay here. Or would the argument be that the law itself is immoral?

I have heard people say that the Iraq war was not only immoral but illegal. And President Obama said that the Afghanistan war was (is?) the “right” war. But there are many liberals who think that war in any situation is immoral. I saw a bumper sticker in the San Francisco Bay area that said “I’m already opposed to the NEXT war.” So for that person, no war is moral, no matter what the circumstance. I tend to think most liberals slant towards that point of view.

So it makes me wonder, what morals are there on the Left? Are there any? If morals are what is right or wrong I’m confused because I hear the left say that it is immoral not give money to the poor. It’s immoral to not to allow gay marriage. It’s immoral to go to war. It’s immoral to arrest illegal immigrants.

But what is moral for a liberal? Is it moral to kill a fetus? Is it moral to take money away from someone who got rich within the framework of the societal system? Is it moral to let illegal immigrants get citizenship simply because they were able to sneak into the country while those who came legally have to wait years (and decades) to get their citizenship legally? Is it moral to force religions to recognize unions that they see as inappropriate? Is it moral to fight for gay marriage but say polygamy is simply wrong? Is it moral to defend your home with a gun? Is it moral to kill someone who has murdered? Is it moral for the government to take someone’s private property because the government “really, really wants it?” Is it moral to say Christians and their beliefs don’t matter while bending over backwards not to offend Muslims? Is it moral to allow one country to produce a nuclear bomb when it has vowed to commit genocide against another country? Was it moral to kill one man who was responsible for over 3,000 deaths in one coordinated attack in New York and Washington, DC? Is it moral to kill one man if it were to save the lives of hundreds? Thousands? Millions?

Is there any morality on the left that can be easily recognized or is it all just whatever the collective Left comes up with on any given day?

Bigotry is bigotry

I read a very good article in the Washington Post about Mitt Romney and his status as a Mormon. As a disclaimer, I am a practicing Mormon and I supported Romney in 2008 and again this year because of his handling of the Salt Lake Olympics, business background, and ability to reach across the isle in a very blue state....

The thing that I'm confused about is the utter silence by the media, both on the right and left, print, TV, radio, blogs, etc. regarding the continued bigotry displayed by any and all voters who say they wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon.

I have no problem with saying that if you don't like Mitt or don't want to vote for him because of his record, great. Don't like he used to be more towards gun control, or more pro-choice, or don't like the Massachusetts health care law? Great, don't vote for him.

Not voting for Romney based on his Mormonism is flat out bigotry. Can you imagine the reaction if anyone on camera or an interview said "I wouldn't vote for Obama (or Cain) because he is black!" What if they said "I won't vote for Joe Lieberman because he is a Jew." I'm sure people don't vote for Keith Ellison in Minnesota based on his being a Muslim, and that is just as wrong. But I haven't heard people say this about Mr. Ellison (probably because I don't live in Minnesota's 5th District.)

I have read and heard people say they wouldn't vote for Romney because he is Mormon. The pastor who introduced Rick Perry last month all but said "You shouldn't vote for anyone who isn't an evangelical Christian. And Mitt Romney isn't an evangelical."

I have personally been subjected to this view, but to be fair, it was a legitimate reasoning. When I started my Masters program at Liberty University, I was told that I wouldn't be allowed to enter into the Chaplains program because getting a Theological degree would be an ecclesiastical endorsement. Liberty does not and will not endorse a Mormon. That is OK, though, because they did let me take many of the classes I need to get my Theology degree from Amridge University (a Church of Christ based institution.)

No one is talking about Mitt Romney as a preacher. They are talking about him as a politician. There are not supposed to be litmus tests based on religion in the US. "Supposed to be." Clearly there are.

That the main stream media, right wing radio and the blogosphere don't challenge anyone and everyone who says they won't vote for Romney based on religion just shows that they are either gutless, don't understand their responsibilities as the fifth estate, or they are biased themselves.

Perhaps a little of all three?

Change in thinking?

As I have been for the past election cycle and this one, I am a Romney guy. I think Mitt is the best candidate for the economy this year, and would have been 3+ years ago.
I also understand that people on the right are worried that because Mitt started his public life more towards the center/left that people distrust that his is actually on the political right. I don't buy this personally. Isn't the whole point of debate and study to learn and grow? When you look at Churchill saying (to paraphrase) "If you aren't a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you aren't a conservative at 40 you have no brain."
I think Mitt has done what politicians have always done. They modify their positions for many reasons. I think he was likely pro-life all along but understood he couldn't make that a main point when running for office in Massachusetts for crying out loud. It's easy for someone who wants to run in Utah or Texas to be so conservative that they make Reagan look moderate because those states have populations that collectively think that way. (And just to make the point, no one is going off on Perry for being a major campaign player for Al Gore of all people, so really, are we saying people shouldn't be allowed to change?)

That all being said, I am starting to think that Newt Gingrich might actually be the best candidate overall. I listened to his 90 minute debate with Herman Cain, if you want to call it a debate. It was more like Newt saying how things are, how they should be and Cain saying, "Yes, I agree." In fact, the most telling part of the debate was following a medicare (medicaid?) question that Cain, repeated the question, looked skyward, realized he had no idea what the question meant, and deferred to Newt. Realistically, that non-answer (added to Cain's other misguided and uninformed opinions) should sink his boat more than anything with the alleged harassment stuff (assuming of course the allegations turn out to be mostly smoke and mirrors, which seems pretty likely.)
The thing I worry about with Newt is the negative name association so many people have with him. The left and the media (I know, same thing) are going to try and kill him with his divorces and anything they can make stick.
However, Newt is the guy on the stage that comes of as informed, teacher-like, straight talking and conservative. I'm not saying Romney is lacking those things, but I would love to see the Lincoln/Douglass type debate with Mitt and Newt. That would go a long ways towards how I think about this cycle.
Regardless, if Romney wins, I would want Newt as the VP. He is the guy who can get an (inevitable?) Republican congress to line up behind the president. But if Newt were to be the candidate, I think Romney in the cabinet would be the way to go with someone like Rubio, Allen West (who I would really like to see run in 4 years if heaven forbid Obama wins again) or another minority (yep, I hate to say it but it might be "necessary") to be the Veep.
*And when I say I hate to say a minority is necessary, I'm talking about the race card the left plays. If you are against Obama, you are racist. Personally, if Cain was the best guy for the job I would vote for him. Hell, if Obama was the best guy for the job I would vote for him. But with the way the left plays the race card whenever it can, I think it will be necessary to counterbalance that with either a woman (not sure who that would be) or a minority.

Media malfeasance

This blog isn’t exactly timely. It looks at the election of 2008. It might not even matter due to the expansion of the alternative media. But considering we are beginning the run-up to the 2012 election. But it might be valuable to assess how the media behaved in that election cycle and how conservatives need to keep a wary eye on the media.
There have been plenty of articles that essentially state that the main stream media (MSM) was helping President Obama win the presidency in 2008. Some would argue the MSM did so simply out of their collective liberal bias and others that it was a concerted effort. The part of the media should be just as influential during the 2012 election. But while conservatives blame the MSM for favoring Obama during the finals of 2008, I would argue that the election was handed to the Democrats, whether Obama or Hillary Clinton, well before the general election.
Let’s look at what happened in the Republican primaries to see if there was a smoking gun. Several weeks before the Iowa caucus the clear front runner was Mitt Romney. Sen. John McCain’s campaign was nearly out of money. Mayor Rudy Giuliani was focusing on the Florida primaries and Gov. Mike Huckabee was just gaining speed and Sen. Fred Thompson (remember him?) was quietly napping.
Then came the attacks. Romney was going negative. He was out to lambaste Huckabee, the biggest threat in the religiously conservative state. He wasn’t just pointing out the differences between himself and Huckabee, he was throwing mud early and often. Hmmmm. Ok, so let’s say that Romney did in fact post attack ads. Anyone remember the ads from 2008? Yeah, me either. But I sure remember that Romney was raked over the coals by the MSM for going negative.
The results? Huckabee won 34% to Romney’s 25% after polling single digits only months before. Well, ok. Stuff like that happens, right? A new guy jumps in the field at the right time, works his tail off and pulls out a win that was difficult to imagine only a short time before.
New Hampshire was up next. Remember, John McCain’s campaign was running on fumes at immediately after Iowa. There were extreme money issues. There were staff concerns. And there was Romney running in front. And what happened? Every story in the media was about the resurrection of John McCain. They hammered again and again that the New Hampshire primaries were open to anyone and that Democrats could vote in the Republican primary. Essentially, the media was implying how Democrats could mess with the Republican primary. Go and vote for McCain. It will throw the Republican process into the wind. Who knows what will happen! Whee!
At this point you might be saying, “Yeah, so? Nothing here to see. Move along.” And I would agree if not for what happened over the next five states.
Michigan was a solid win for Romney. And what did the media say? So what!?! Romney was supposed to win Michigan. For crying out loud, he was from Michigan. His dad was the governor of Michigan. Michigan doesn’t really count as a “win.”
So looking at the looming South Carolina primaries the candidates were tied 1-1-1. Or were they? Go back and look. Wyoming held its caucus before New Hampshire! Anyone remember who won that one? Romney, with 61%. Then the same day as South Carolina there was another primary. That was in Nevada. The stories in the MSM were all about John McCain winning South Carolina and Huckabee with a strong second place. But what happened in Nevada? Romney won the first majority of any Republican in any state primary, claiming 51%! (Wyoming was a caucus, so the majority in the primary is correct.)
At this point, Huckabee had 27 delegates. McCain had 38 and Romney had 65. But the stories were all about McCain winning South Carolina. There was barely a peep about Romney dominating at this point. And it all came down to Florida. And what happened? McCain beat Romney in a winner take all delegates race 36%-31%. And this would seem a straightforward win but for a few items of particular note.
The stories coming out of Florida were all about the surprising finish by Mike Huckabee, who was only marginally beaten by Giuliani and of course the “huge” five percent win by McCain. But there was something missing.
Only a couple of days before the McCain win there was an ad put out by his campaign saying that Romney wanted a “timeline” set for troop withdrawals from Iraq! How could Romney be for such an outrageous position? Didn’t he know that was against the troops? Didn’t he know he was going against the Republican field? The only problem was that McCain had lied. Romney had proposed the same timelines as McCain. The New York Times even said that the McCain ad was a lie. Romney pointed this out during the Republican debate but the damage had already been done.
Romney was behind, spending large amounts of his own money and fighting for the same delegates as Huckabee. It was a general consensus that Huckabee couldn’t win at this point, but the MSM didn’t call for him to drop out and let the two man show proceed as was happening on the Democratic side between Obama and Clinton.
McCain won the nomination for the Republicans. Obama wins for the Democratic Party. The economic collapse happens and instead of having the most economically sound candidate available, the Republicans were stuck with John McCain and Obama was running into the sunset of hope and change.
The media certainly didn’t know the financial downturn was coming like a tidal wave but it did know that McCain could not beat Obama (or Clinton.) So they did everything they could to promote the man.
In my opinion the fifth estate was irrevocably damaged that day. The MSM has not done anything to regain the trust of the American people. The alternative media of cable, talk radio and especially the Internet have balanced the tables. But when we look at the 2008 election, the MSM showed their hands and did everything they could to torpedo the Republican primary process.
But to borrow from Dennis Miller, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong….

99%? Really?

As I was driving from a volleyball game home last week I saw a small group of the so-called "Occupy (insert city here." I think it is very interesting to see that their signs claim to represent that 99% of people who aren't super-rich.
I know I haven't been consulted on if they represent me. In fact, I am not super rich. But I am in the military. And since only .5% of the population ever serve in the military, it could be that I am not in fact in the 99%. So, there is that.
I was also listening to Opie and Anthony on XM radio when they had a Occupy "leader" in. He isn't really a leader, because they are too smart to have leaders, or so they say. It was interesting to hear this 24-year-old say that he had never held a full-time job. He had backpacked around Egypt on the dime of his parents, and on and on. When you have never worked a day in your life, isn't it easy to complain that you aren't getting out of life what others are? He also asked what the difference between Occupy and the TEA Party was? Why should "they" be considered positive to society? Just because they work? YES! Just because they work, pay taxes, buy products, etc. They are good for society. Wanting lower government power isn't the same as not wanting corporations. And good luck finding anything the Occupy crowd is wearing or using that isn't from corporations. Shirts, shoes, iPhones, the Internet? All made possible by "evil corporations."
But the thing that made me most ticked off was a sound bite by some kid who complained he graduated college with $80K in student debt, can't find a job and has to live wherever he can. Oh, boo hoo! Nobody forced you to take out student loans. You could have stayed at home can gone to community college for way less. Or you could have gotten a job while you were working. But ultimately, no one made you take out loans or get a degree in something that you can't find a job.

Here is a hint to people who can't find a job---look for any job you can. If it is $8 an hour, so be it. Work hard, and try to find a better job while you are working. Or, try to impress your boss so they want to pay you more. Or, even better, go down to your local military recruiters office. The military will make sure you have somewhere to live, give you meals, clothing, etc. But, just remember, you will actually have to work. I know, a deal breaker for most of the Occupy crowd, but better to offer the idea than not...

Voter registration

I read an article that laid out the "plan" by the GOP to limit voters who lean towards the Democratic party. It spoke about limiting pre-voting windows, requiring ID's, etc. All aimed by the GOP at "traditionally Democratic Voting" block.
So, wait, the GOP is trying to make sure that illegals don't vote? Ok.
They are trying to make sure people don't vote multiple times? Ok.
They are trying to make sure felons don't vote? Ok.
Basically it sounds like the GOP is trying to make it difficult for people who aren't supposed to vote.
I don't have a problem with this.
And anyone who believes in the rule of law shouldn't have a problem, either.

Racism & the Left

So I'm a little confused. Janeane Garofalo says that because I'm a white, conservative male, if I don't support President Obama it's because I'm a racist. She also says that if I support Herman Cain I'm also a racist.
Huh?
President Obama is black, but so is Herman Cain. They couldn't be more different in their backgrounds. They have different "real-world" experiences. They have different ideologies. They have different, well, just about everything. The one thing they share is a high degree of pigmentation in their skin.
So what does that have to do with anything? Plenty if you agree with the open minded and brilliant Garofalo.
According to her, the only way Herman Cain could possibly be a conservative is by being brain washed or displaying Stockholm Syndrome. I don't recall reading any stories where Mr. Cain was held hostage by Conservatives but not reading something isn't proof, right?
I mean, I have no proof that when she was young Garofalo was dropped on her head and scrambled what little brains she has. But that doesn't prove it didn't happen.
The issue I have is that Garofalo loves to call racism when it is convenient for her or gets her some publicity. If you are calling out Herman Cain specifically because he is a black conservative, that makes you racist.
There, I said it. Garofalo is racist. She hates all Conservatives. She hates Palin, Bachmann, Perry and whomever else is on the right. They are all "brain damaged" in her words. But none of them have been accused of being brain washed. Just Herman Cain.
She specifically made that point that as a black man, he must have had something horrible done to him to make him a conservative. The logic follows that any black who is a conservative (hello Justice Thomas) has been broken and not intellectually strong enough to overcome their brain-washers.
Or, there is one other explanation. That the vast majority of blacks have been brain washed to believe that they should automatically be liberals and vote for Democrats.
If you asked what values are taught in black homes I am confident you would hear: God-fearing, hard working, honest, self responsibility... etc. But those are all Conservative ideals. The problem is the left has successfully made blacks think that Democrats are their only choice. Without Democrats there wouldn't be food stamps, welfare checks, etc. But in the same breath the left (rightfully) points out that there are more whites in those programs that blacks.
So why do blacks vote in such majorities for the Democrats? Because they have been brain washed by the left. They leave out details like the Republican party was founded to end slavery. They leave out the John F. Kennedy didn't push for civil rights because he was afraid of losing votes in the South. They ignore that former Democratic Senator, the late Robert Byrd (known as the conscience of the Senate) was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
But the point of all of this is when someone like Janeane Garofalo pulls out the racism card, maybe you need to look at why she is trying to play it. Is there really racism going on or is it a ploy to demonize one side of an argument with no factual evidence.
Is the TEA Party racist? I'm sure you have heard it is, but where is the proof? Are Republicans racist as a whole? Where is the proof? Is Janeane Garofolo a racist? Yes, because you can simply listen to what she says and know you don't need any more proof.