In today's American Thinker, Jeffrey Folks asks the question Are Liberals Immoral?, then answers in the affirmative in the first sentence. The rest of the article is example after example of hypocrisy, moral failings, out and out wrong doing, theft and seemingly every other failing of the human species.
Actually, I have a bone to pick with this article. Oh, not with the facts mentioned. No, the facts are on record and not to be disputed. Rather, the bone I have to pick is the terminology. You see, Folks, like a number of other writers and commentators insists on calling these people "liberal." Ann Coulter is guilty, as is Rush Limbaugh. But I think it is important to call things by their names. These people are Leftists, whatever flavor of Leftism they favor, be it communist, socialist, fascist, or progressive, or just plain Marxist.
The Left is famous for camouflaging itself in words that make it sound less threatening. For instance, it should rightly call itself "collectivists" to distinguish its philosophy from that of individualists. It chose communism, because that seemed less frightening, then when the horrors of communism became apparent, socialism. Fascism is just the nationalist form of communism. When those descriptions were exposed, they chose "progressive." Everybody wants progress. Progress is such a powerful word. But of course, when the horrors of eugenics and other progressive policies were exposed, they retreated to the word "liberal," to hide among the true liberals in politics.
Similarly, Leftists are famous for for camouflaging their policies with nice sounding words as well. For instance, since the Clinton administration, Leftists have spoken of spending tax dollars as "investing." Obama has almost made a cliche out of "investing." But an investment implies and expected return. Investors, such as Bain Capital, are very concerned about the proposed return on investment, and the price to earnings ratio. Where is the return on such "investments" as Solyndra? Instead we should call government spending "government spending." But this is nothing new. Eugenics was touted as "scientific," but in fact was just plain murder. Social Security, we were assured, was actuarilly sound, but the fact is it is a giant ponzi scheme. Under ObamaCare, we now have the concept that to not purchase a product is to act in interstate commerce. But the fact remains that people who choose not to purchase health insurance do not act in interstate commerce, and the government has no business forcing them to act.
Are Leftists immoral? Yes, because if we were to dig into the motives of the Left, we would find them worshipping at the golden calf of government. We would find a deep desire to make of this world a Utopia. But of course, Utopia doesn't exist, and in order to achieve their goals, they will have to murder many people who see them for what they are.
Update 6/1/2012: The American Thinker had another article entitled Jealous God Obama Attacks Rival Religions by Stella Paul. Paul makes the point that we, as Christians and Jews need to decide with whom we are standing, God, or Obama. As noted in the last paragraph above, Leftism is a religion. It can not abide any rival religion. Thus, you will find that the Communists tried to get rid of Christianity in Russia, have tried to eliminate the Falun Gong in China, or created their own pantheism in Nazi Germany as an alternative. Note that Falun Gong isn't truly a religion, but a spiritual discipline that with elements of Buddhism, and emphasising moral teachings. But the Chicoms went after it because of its independence from the State. The State can have no independent groups. Note too that in the case of Fascist Italy, the Church was too powerful to be displaced, so that Mussolini was forced to accommodate himself to it.
Taken to the Woodshed
1 hour ago