HOME_____BLOG _____BOOKS_____RADIO_____CLASSES_____VIDEO_____PUBLIC SPEAKER

Constitution Monitor:...............Trump...............Biden............... 2021 Congress

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Where the Left misses the whole point



The left does not understand why conservatives are so upset with them, and why Christians are so offended by their attempts to achieve social change through humanistic reform. I am a firm believer that enlightenment, as defined by the left and their new age cousins, is simply an attempt to do away with consequences, and to enable the government to promote and provide, provide, provide.

It is not the government's position to provide any more than basic security from foreign invaders, and ultimately provide protection of life, liberty and property. Otherwise, for the most part, government should be limited. Now, my liberal friends, don't go thinking I am calling for anarchy, that is not what I said, and there are more functions to the government I think should be in action, but the point is, I don't believe that it is the government's place to provide me with a decent standard of living (that is up to me, through my hard work and dedication to myself and my family), I don't believe that government has any business taking control of the corporate world (like that idiotic statement by Hillary about taking more from the oil companies because they made too much profit - what is this? Penalties for success?), and I guess overall I am saying that I don't believe there should be a centralized government dictating what is in the public's interest, and what is not. As Bill O'Reilly has stated, "It is not the job of government to promote and, if possible, provide more freedom, a better environment, broader prosperity, better health, greater fulfillment in life. . . " It is the government's job to protect our freedom, and to provide regulations to assist in protecting the environment to a point (but not to the point that it is overly zealous and breaking the back of industry). It is up to the individual to provide himself (or herself) with prosperity, a healthy life, and fulfillment in life. If someone wants to die of obesity instead, that too, is their right.

The more I read and watch society and observe the politicians the more I realize that the left believes that success should be penalized by distributing the wealth because surely any successful person did not truly make it on their own - surely societal assistance was in there somewhere in regards to their success (no such thing as a self-made man, I guess). The left believes that terrorism exists because of America's existence as a superpower, and that the United States is just as guilty of terrorism (if not more so) than the Islamists with its military being all over the world. Responsible people, in their eyes, do not become so from parental discipline, and society cannot allow discipline of our criminals to continue - punishment is not the answer in their eyes, treatment is. Any idea that there may be a higher power is hogwash, and anyone believing such a thing should not be allowed to promote such beliefs in the public square, or anywhere else other than in the darkest corner of their home, because it might offend someone somewhere. Offending Christians is a minor offense. Everyone should live peacefully together, talking out their differences, and peacefully working together.

Great. But you forgot something. Human nature.

Human nature dictates that a person usually desires being the best they can be (in most cases) and striving for whatever it is the person desires be it independence, a home, a nice car, a cool stereo system, whatever. Human nature also takes advantage of situations, pushing the envelope, seeing what one can get away with. Our welfare system is a great example of that. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and most people know the difference, and they know the difference between right and wrong because of Biblical values. This is why the left hates people of faith so much. Followers of God see them for what they are, and call them out.

Let me go back to the consequences thing. The left supports the legalization of drugs. The idea is to eliminate the crime element by no longer making it a crime. That is idiotic.

What about the consequences for deviant sexual behavior? Their argument is that it must have something to do with something in the genetic makeup in the individual, so now there are no consequences for such actions. Homosexuals are now being treated as if they are their own race striving for equality, and sex offenders have minimal terms so that they may be treated of this horrid disease. No matter that the victim is affected for life. After all, according to the left, we can't judge anyone on their personal behavior, and God is judgmental, so those Christians must be pushed down.

While they are at it, the left also thinks (as I understand it) that world consensus is needed to use military force. That's one of the reasons they are so mad at Bush over Iraq. He did it without everyone in the world being in complete agreement.

I suppose doing nothing when it comes to the terrorist element is the better option. I suppose become isolationists, or dancing through the daisies with our socialist neighbor to the north and the nations of Europe that have forgotten that socialistic ideals failed in Soviet Russia is a better idea. Apparently the left forgot what happened in southeast Asia after we abandoned Vietnam. A similar bloodbath awaits Iraq if we cut and run. The left seems to have amnesia in regards to history. And for those lefties that argue that they agree with Afghanistan, just not the invasion of Iraq, that's like saying that we should have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, but not Germany or Italy.

Okay, now I'm going on a tangent. Let's list this properly so that Tom and MK can respond properly. Direct question, no word twisting allowed, so don't misrepresent what I am saying here. Yes or no: Does the edicts you follow include that making a judgment regarding someone's personal behavior is wrong (including things like, oh I don't know, Christianity's view of homosexuality, for instance); Anyone who believes in God shall not acknowledge Him in public (be it in politics, at public school, etc - because such recognition of a God is offensive to everyone else); The wealthy must "pay their fair share", essentially giving to the poor, including seizure of private property if necessary; parents cannot be and shouldn't be the only provider of moral values to children, especially when relating to abortion and sexual education, which "must" be taught to such children through the public schools; abortion is a mother's right, euthanasia is a dying person's right, but murderers must not be put to death for their pre-meditated murder of another individual because killing is wrong; military force cannot be used as a preemptive measure, and any military campaigns must be approved by the global body; All people are entitled to their own personal gratification therefore narcotics should not be prohibited (Amsterdam?); Government must provide a good life for its citizens, raising taxes to provide health care, housing, jobs, and whatever else because citizens are entitled to these things just for being citizens, success such as earning riches must be punished, taken away from the wealthy, and redistributed. Is that correct? Do I have that right?

This is why you don't like the Conservative Right. The Conservative Right believes that personal behavior when it comes to morals that will adversely affect society should not be rewarded, Biblical Values are the values this nation was founded upon, and has prospered because of. God Bless America. Wealth gained by an individual helps the economy when their business grows and provides jobs - taxing the wealthy too heavily creates a stagnantation of the economy. Persons that have not earned their living has no entitlement to a free handout. Parental rights are paramount, and a parent has the right to discipline their child through spanking or whatever manner they see fit (as long, of course, when it isn't obvious abuse), and should be the sole providers of the moral concepts their child receives. Innocent lives are precious and should not be terminated by abortion, especially in the name of "choice", and if an established life can be saved it should be (I was in a coma, and essentially a vegetable that completely relied on machines to keep me alive for a while -- good thing my wife didn't believe in pulling the plug), and a punishment should fit the crime. Multi-death murderers should be sentenced to the death penalty. People who abuse little children sexually should be imprisoned for life. If military action is necessary to protect the nation it should be carried out. Obviously, recklessness is not encouraged, but when a dictator with ties with terrorist organizations has weapons of mass destruction (and has a history of using them) and vows to provide them to your enemies that have continuously practiced terrorism against you and your allies, an attack is justified. Drugs are dangerous to the person taking them AND those around that person, and should never be legalized. The government will not provide for me what I am capable of providing myself. Regulate some things if necessary? Fine. But I don't want any gifts, and I don't want my tax money used to reward people for not working, etc.

Now, I am sure the liberal readers of this post will twist this, convolute it, and so forth. So, before you open your traps, let go of "where's your sources," and anything else you normally throw out there. I understand this is hard for you because it is a large dose of common sense and among the left I don't believe that common sense is common at all. And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise. If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

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

Now for the shameless plug - don't forget the premiere of Political Pistachio Radio at BlogTalk Radio this Saturday 4 pm Pacific Time/7 pm Eastern Time (That's 6pm for you folks in Minnesota). Call in when the show is live! Number is (646) 652-2940. Or if you miss it, listen to it later by going to the archive.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

Well said.

David Odeen said...

Agreed well said, in fact its meant to be read twice for people like me!

I am not sure what that Minnesota thing means? hahaha! but I will be listening, for sure.

Now I sleep and will re-read before 9AM CTS..thats 7AM pacific!

Tom said...

Holy cow.. that was massive. You started with one of the largest straw man arguments I've ever seen.. then threw in an "as I understand it", and then asked for viewpoints on a whole litany of issues.

Now - I truly do appreciate your asking for a reponse, and I'll write one, but it's going to take a very long time - and I don't blog much on the weekend, so might not get to it until Monday - but I will get to it.

Just this question, "Biblical Values are the values this nation was founded upon" is factually incorrect, and you have had to have studied some constitutional law to trace back orgins as far as the Magna Carta. You also have to have stuided a lot of history, and read volumnous papers the so-called "founding fathers" wrote when framing their concept for the constitution.

By the way.. did you know that 7 of the 9 men widely considered to be the "Founding Fathers" were not Christian at all? Thomas Jefferson is probably the most famous - and identified himself as a diest. I've read much of his work, and in that reading it helped me to come to understand that I'm a Diest of a fashion as well.

Any way, that whole "founded on Religion question" is something I wrote an essay on my blog ages ago, and I may just end up linking to it instead of dropping in a huge amount of text into a comment.

And a big disclaimer, I don't pretend to speak for all progressive/liberals, my words are must what I think are rational and well reasoned. There any number of flavors out there, but I think I have a fairly mainstream liberal viewpoint, with some libertarian sprinkled in there. The "drug" issue I lean libertarian on.

Anyway.. What I got from your post is that you make a lot of unsubstantiated assertions about the liberal viewpoints (that is your common straw man argument you make in virtually every post). You don't value sourcing information, and rely on "common sense" a lot - which frankly is bizzare. And you tie all in a nice bow of "it doesn't matter what you say, I'll never change my mind" - which is the clinical definition of a cultist.

But as Sean Connery once said.. Alright, you rogue, I'll play your game.

I will tell you this, if you made a persuasive and rational argument that I evaluate and find superior to my own, I'd change my viewpoint. I don't know.. maybe in this crazy liberal mind of mine, that's just common sense?

So.. Monday.. Tuesday.. I'm going to drop a huge bomb of text in this comment thread, and I hope you at least read it. Oh, and I will be sourcing as much as possible. It's just been my nature to do that ever since my college days where I would have been failed had I not.

Have a great weekend.

Anonymous said...

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote except one aspect:

Let me go back to the consequences thing. The left supports the legalization of drugs. The idea is to eliminate the crime element by no longer making it a crime. That is idiotic.

What about the consequences for deviant sexual behavior? Their argument is that it must have something to do with something in the genetic makeup in the individual, so now there are no consequences for such actions. Homosexuals are now being treated as if they are their own race striving for equality...


Yet contrast that with your earlier statements:

It is not the government's position to provide any more than basic security from foreign invaders, and ultimately provide protection of life, liberty and property. Otherwise, for the most part, government should be limited.

It is the government's job to protect our freedom...If someone wants to die of obesity instead, that too, is their right.


How does dictating what one is authorized to put into his/her own body or what sexual deviations two consenting adults may engage in reconcile with your stated definition of the "government's position"?

How is someone who "wants to die of obesity" different than someone who chooses to poison themselves with cocaine or heroin or expose themselves to myriads of sexually transmitted diseases of varying lethality?

You did attempt to address the illegal drug aspects with this statement:

Drugs are dangerous to the person taking them AND those around that person, and should never be legalized.

But that falls short of the mark. The only way that drugs are dangerous to "those around that person" is if the drug taker engages in activities that would be illegal whether drugs are involved or not. If someone, under the influence of drugs (including alchohol) harms another or violates another's rights, they should be arrested and prosecuted for that harm or violation just like anyone NOT under the influence.

You are using the same premise that gun banners use: because some people who use drugs harm others, no one should be allowed to use drugs. Many of the crimes that are associated with drug use are directly attributable to the status of illegality.

Although I agree wholeheartedly that any non-consentual sexual deviations, including child molestation and statutory rape, should be punished severely as violations of the rights of the victims and anti-social behavior...you seem to be implying that there should be some legal censure regarding consensual relations between adults. That simply does not fit in with your own stated opinion on the role of government.

Does(sic) the edicts you follow include that making a judgment regarding someone's personal behavior is wrong (including things like, oh I don't know, Christianity's view of homosexuality, for instance)

Now that sentiment I can get behind. Just as adults have a basic right to engage in consentual sexual deviations, Christians also have the basic right to express their belief that such deviations are morally unacceptable. Just as there should be no "edicts" restricting "victimless" immoral activities, there also should be no "edicts" restricting the identification of those activities as immoral.

This is why you don't like the Conservative Right. The Conservative Right believes that personal behavior when it comes to morals that will adversely affect society should not be rewarded

And I can agree with you wholeheartedly there as well; the only place we seem to disagree is at what point it is appropriate for the Government to step in.

I agree with the basic role of government as you originally stated:

It is the government's job to protect our freedom, and to provide regulations to assist in protecting the environment to a point (but not to the point that it is overly zealous and breaking the back of industry). It is up to the individual to provide himself (or herself) with prosperity, a healthy life, and fulfillment in life.

But disagree with the contradictions with that original sentiment that arose later on.

Tom said...

Mudkitty took me to task for being wordy, so I'll try and be concise.

It seems inherently illogical to claim that liberals are extreme moral relativists that believe actions have no consequences. That's simply not true, and simplistic to the absurd. I've already argued that point before, however you will continue to make that false claim regardless what I say.

I agree with you that government should be small and limited. However, as a society we cannot be calloused and harsh to the plight of the poor. All too often it is the children that bear that burden.

that idiotic statement by Hillary about taking more from the oil companies because they made too much profit - what is this? Penalties for success?

It's called a windfall profits tax, was introduced in 1980, and has been used before. You make it sound as if Hillary just dreamed it up. Talk about idiotic statements.

It is true that in this post you create a standard that you tear down in the next paragraph. It's kinda weird how you do that. Example;

If someone wants to die of obesity instead, that too, is their right.

And then you rail against drugs. Isn't alcohol a drug? Nicotine? Why does society get to pick what substances somebody puts in their own body? Death from food? Death from drugs? All the same thing. It directly contradicts your point. And please.. spare us the "drugs hurt other people" claim. So does alcohol, and those behaviors are already against the law.

Any idea that there may be a higher power is hogwash, and anyone believing such a thing should not be allowed to promote such beliefs in the public square, or anywhere else other than in the darkest corner of their home, because it might offend someone somewhere.

I've argued this point before also. Nobody cares what any other person's religious beliefs are. You don't need me to validate any "higher power". However, America is a secular society, and the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of, and from, religion. I'm not sure why you have an issue with that. It's been supported by the Supreme Court numerous times.

Your arguing method is amusing though.. as you describe your religious activities in the "darkest corner of your home". Isn't that dishonest? I mean, I realize you take every opportunity to make stuff up out of whole cloth, but nobody is even remotely trying to force you into the "darkest corner".

Again - why do you so transparently and dishonestly lie like that? Are you just being rhetorical?

You have churches, and whatever sort of gathering you want to have with like-minded people in any sort of private affair you want. I see, then, that your central issue is that we don't want it in the public square, but you MUST have it in the public square in order to force your beliefs on everyone else. Why can't you simply be happy with the private celebration of your religion? Why do you have to be given opportunity to force it on me? Why do you get so defensive when I don't want to have anything to do with it?

You like to post examples of so-called "liberal" teachers imposing their morals on students as if the converse never happens. How about a report from the St. Petersburg Times. <-- notice the link. Links are good.

BROOKSVILLE - It had been a hard Friday at Brooksville Elementary School, with lots of misbehavior that didn't bode well for the start of state testing the following week.

So the principal and a few staff members appealed to a higher power.

They prayed and blessed their students' desks with prayer oil.


They actually held prayers and anointed desks with oil in order to improve the student test scores. LOL And I'm sorry.. but that's just funny. The students came back to school and wondered why their desks were greasy. Read the whole report.. it's just so funny.

Here's another good example. Do you know how "In God We Trust" got on the currency? Do you know what year? Religious people like to claim they are being persecuted, and that we're trying to take God away from them, but the reverse is actually the case.

In God We Trust did not show up on the currency until 1956. Get that? 1956. It was not there for the first 180 years of Americas' existence. Then, the religious groups forced it through Congress. That is not the "tradition" in America. Tradition in America is to NOT have that phrase on the currency, and we need to get back to American traditions and take it off.

I'm perplexed why religious people think they are being persecuted, when in fact all we've been trying to do is maintain America's secular heritage. The fact of the matter is, 7 of the 9 founding founders denied the divinity of Christ. Okay?

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Monroe... all non-Christians, and several deists.

Read about Franklin's attack on organized religion here. It's scathing. Go read Paine's The Age of Reason.

Again, I don't bring this up to "attack" religion. I'm merely pointing out the historical context of our nation's fundamental principles, and the absurd claim that somehow America is a Christian theocracy. Finally, do a word search on the text of the constitution. Search for "Jesus". Search for "God". Notice something missing?

Right is right and wrong is wrong, and most people know the difference, and they know the difference between right and wrong because of Biblical values.

That's a question I asked in another thread. Are religious people inherently more moral than atheists? You didn't answer, but I suspect you believe the answer is "yes they are". That's quite offensive, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

I wrote more about the guiding principals that our Constitution is based on, on my blog, here. The short of it is, the framers based our form of government on a blend of ancient Sparta and renaissance Venice. The bible has no references to representative government anywhere in it.

As I wrote;

The bible only enters US law to the extent that it influenced English common law, and even there it's part of a hodgepodge including Roman, Viking and Norman law. In other words, it's of very limited importance.

You might not want to read my post however, as I concluded it with quotations on religion from various "founders".

And finally, go read the Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article 11. It states, in part;

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

Can that be any more clear for you?

I think I'm being overly verbose again. Anyway..

Moving on.. homosexuality...

In another thread, you claim that being gay is a choice. There's really very few people who actually hold on to that out-dated and absurd claim. Not surprising since you claim that no matter of information or argument can dissuade you from your "beliefs". However, the entire scientific community disagrees with you, and I'm pretty sure that if you asked any gay person, they would tell you they never had a choice.

Mary Cheney is a great example that I like to use. She's born into the archetypical Christian/Republican/Conservative home. Darth Cheney is her father for pete's sake. She has every incentive to marry a man and raise a family. She's going to raise the family, but not with a man, and I find it one of life's delicious little ironies that her dad doesn't have a problem with it.

Why do you claim that being gay is a choice? That's easy. It's because that's the only way you can support discriminating against them. If being gay was just as much a chance and condition as being some particular minority race, then you are forced to either treat them equally or just be a bigot.

None of the Euro nations with legal gay marriage has had any sort of negative consequence. Canada is fine. Massachusetts is still chugging along. It is only a matter of time before full rights are granted regardless. The religious right is helping that case along. Every new Ted Haggard advances that agenda - and I'm quite sure there are a whole bunch of Ted Haggard’s out there.

the left also thinks (as I understand it) that world consensus is needed to use military force. That's one of the reasons they are so mad at Bush over Iraq.

That's factually inaccurate. We're "mad at Bush" because all the rationales used in the run up to the war proved to be false. We're mad because he botched it. We're mad because he chose Donald Rumsfeld to be defense secretary, who John McCain said would go down in history as the worse secretary ever.

Notice - the left supported the Afghanistan campaign, and would have preferred we focused on that, done it well, and caught Bin Laden. Instead, it's been botched.

And yes, if you're doing the right thing, it's easy to build a consensus with the world community and get them to help the cause.

I suppose doing nothing when it comes to the terrorist element is the better option.

There's another one of your straw mans. The left never advocated "doing nothing". I've written about the smart way to fight the war on terror, but you'll just continue spouting "doing nothing" because that makes it easier for you to argue against. However, I've asked you before and you didn't respond; If there's no military solution, what do you do? Keep trying? Keep fighting and dying for how long? 100 years?

"Cut and run" simple slogan. We cut and run from Vietnam according to you, where in reality we should have.. what.. nuked the north? You support more Americans fighting and dying in Vietnam over a conflict that was not ours? For a guy that talks about morals a lot, I can't believe you don't see how immoral that is.

Yes or no: Does the edicts you follow include that making a judgment regarding someone's personal behavior is wrong (including things like, oh I don't know, Christianity's view of homosexuality, for instance);

Like I said about Tim Hardaway - I support anybody's right to hate anybody else and say it publicly. You just have to deal with the consequences. Hate whoever you want - but the equal protection clause of the Constitution requires everyone be treated the same.

Question for you; What's your view of Loving vs. Virginia?


Anyone who believes in God shall not acknowledge Him in public (be it in politics, at public school, etc - because such recognition of a God is offensive to everyone else);

That's right. I explained why above, but not because it's "offensive", but because America is a secular nation. I know that makes you insane, but it's true.

The wealthy must "pay their fair share", essentially giving to the poor, including seizure of private property if necessary;

It's called progressive taxation, and I support it. Government has to be paid for, however I'm not opposed to a system that is simpler to administer. The tax code is far too complex. By the way, it was the current "conservative" SC that allows local government to seize property. Well, "seize" isn't the proper word since compensation is paid.

parents cannot be and shouldn't be the only provider of moral values

I went through a public school, and they did a fine job. I don't imagine the school would penalize a student if the parent wished them to not participate in a "sex-ed" class. You make much more out of it then there is, but that won't stop you from continuing to push the falsehood that liberals think teachers should teach morals and not parents.

abortion is a mother's right, euthanasia is a dying person's right

That's right. It goes back to Bill O'Reilly's argument on the roll of the government. For the most part, it's not as much a liberal position as libertarian.

murderers must not be put to death for their pre-meditated murder of another individual because killing is wrong;

Yes, that's right. I've already explained all that.

military force cannot be used as a preemptive measure

You have to put that in some context. Afghanistan was a "pre-emptive" measure that pretty much everyone supported. But, as pointed out in Iraq, if you're going to do it, you better be right about why you're doing it, and you better do a really good job, or pay the consequences. As we've seen.. Bush's approval ratings are in the low 30's. Most Americans want our troops home. He will go down in history as the worst president ever.

any military campaigns must be approved by the global body

Not at all, but if you're engaging in a conflict for the right reason, global approval will be easy.

All people are entitled to their own personal gratification therefore narcotics should not be prohibited (Amsterdam?)

That's the libertarian viewpoint, yes, and one that I share. There is some disagreement on that on the left. Some want to just legalize pot and other "soft drugs", while others see no point in making distinctions. Again, the contradiction with alcohol is troubling. Do you like a cold beer on the weekend? Do you want to make sure no Americans are allowed a beer?

I find it hypocritical that you expect people to be responsible for themselves in economic matters, but not when it comes to drugs.

Government must provide a good life for its citizens, raising taxes to provide health care, housing, jobs, and whatever else

"Good life" is a subjective term. I'm not sure if you realize this, but people sometimes need help for no other reason than bad luck. Then there are kids who did not choose to have deadbeat parents. Surely the wealthiest nation on earth can pitch in to help people.

But I think I see the issue here. Somehow you think liberals want the government to pay people to sit at home and do nothing. You think liberals want to take Bill Gates' money and spread it around so people don't have to find jobs. That's simply not true. I think people have an innate desire to be productive and take care of their families. You, on the contrary, assume the worst about people and just assume all they want is a hand out.

Most agencies have strict rules that help prevent welfare abuse. Will that stop every case of abuse? Heck no, but it makes a lot more sense to help people who truly do need it then scrap the whole system because some abuse it.

I guess that pretty much covers it all. I still chuckle every time I see;

And remember this, you can't convince me otherwise.