How High Is Your Moral Bar?


image

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/12/have_you_seen_this_obama_video

For the die hard liberal/progressive Democrat left there are two moral bars at play – two bars that define what is morally acceptable in the culture and in political candidates.

The first bar is that which is acceptable behavior to the political Democrat left and to much of the American media.

That bar is very low and rapidly approaching ground level. Currently that bar is so low as to require – by government decree – that boys be allowed to use the girls rest rooms and locker rooms. President Barack Obama through his Department of Justice is in the process of redefining what people have known and accepted for millennia – that boys are different than girls and appropriate accommodations to these differences are made in the form, for example, of separate locker rooms, showers and restrooms.

That the state of North Carolina felt it necessary to codify into state law the distinction between the genders has caused a firestorm of reaction from many quarters; PayPal, Dow Chemical, the NBA, the NCAA, Google and other businesses oppose North Carolina’s new anti-LGBT law. And of course the Obama Justice Department has filed a law suite against the North Carolina law.

This pushback against millennial long gender differentiation is couched in terms of LGBTQ equity and equal protection. But one of its most destructive effects is the unnecessary and unjustified recruitment of many teens, our children, into the LGBTQ life style. This recruitment is based on nothing more than the legal and scientific torturing of very radical agents such as Obama who truly mean to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” – politically as well as culturally and spiritually.

The next and very predictable lowering of this leftist bar is to legitimize and legalize pedophilia, and demonize those that would oppose – dumping them into Hillary Clintons “basket of deplorables.” .

Will we be hearing a righteous outcry in the main stream media about the truly shameful behavior of President Barack Obama as shown in the video above? No – for that behavior rises above the ground level moral bar of the truly radical left.

Will we be hearing and seeing a very public apology from the President of the United States? No – his rock star popularity assures his rise above the left’s deplorable moral bar.

Will we be hearing and seeing a public and sincere apology from former president Bill Clinton and his enabling wife Hillary to those four women present at the recent debate as well as to Monica Lewinsky who’s seaman stained blue dress stands as clear evidence of the depravity of the Clintons. No – They also rise above the moral bar steadily lowered over decades by the leftist elite of this nation.

The second bar is that which is unacceptable behavior to the political Democrat left by those opposing the agenda of the left.

This second moral  bar of the left is wholly imaginary. The left sees a true moral bar such as in the Ten Commandments, and seeks to usurp it and use it as a bludgeon against its enemies.  They see the package and its beautiful wrappings and try to pull it down to the depraved level  of their first bar. But they only see the pretty wrapping and refuse to unwrap the package to see its true content.

The purpose of a moral bar – a thought and behavioral standard if you will — is to be a positive, protective and constructive force. It protects and builds up. It protects a family against a husband and father bent on satisfying only selfish needs at the expense of a wife and children. These selfish needs often include the acquisition and discarding of Playmates in the Hugh Heffner tradition, with the first discard being wife and mother. A true moral bar is also a positive and constructive force contributing to the strengthening and continuance of a moral community, culture and nation.

When the liberal/progressive left takes on the veneer of moral outrage at the transgressions of an enemy it is used to destroy that enemy. Destroy but not admonish and correct one who fails the moral standard. This is in stark contrast to reasons for having a moral standard at all – to prevent bad behavior, to correct bad behavior and hopefully to return a transgressor of the code to a semblance of good societal standing. A good example of the positive working of a true moral standard would be the life of  Chuck Coulson I encourage you to investigate the life of this man who was redeemed through the positive workings of a true moral standard rather than him being destroyed by the false moral standard of the left.

The picture I see that perhaps best contrasts  a true moral standard with a false standard is

Image result for the thieves on the cross with jesus

the two thieves hanging on crosses along with Jesus.

Both began their time on the cross by mocking and blaspheming Him, as did many of the spectators. One of the thieves responded in faith to the message of salvation and was taken to paradise that very day. He is the one usually referred to as the thief on the cross, while the other man did not respond in faith and is now suffering from a deadly and eternal mistake.

In the context of the transgressions of Donald Trump in this 2016 presidential election, and the continual bombardment of those transgressions, I am reminded that Donald Trump is the one on his cross who has acknowledged his transgressions and has apologized for them.  His enemies on their crosses continue with no repentance of their transgressions, and hypocritical mocking of the one on the other cross.

How high is your moral bar?

A good place to learn and reflect is at the Ten Commandments.

 

Don Johnson – October 2016

 

 

https://youtu.be/dGJIB5cO0cQ

Advertisements

3 responses to “How High Is Your Moral Bar?

  1. Well written, as usual, Don. The only thing you didn’t mention is the evil biased press that is enabling the left wing progressives.

    • Thanks Ron … appreciate your comment and support.
      What I would say about the press is this:
      I am and have been grateful for Fox News in particular, and conservative internet sites, thinkers and writers as well. In my observations over the years, I’ve seen that in general, the writers of the main-stream press fit well with the narrative in my OP above. But they do measure up to a Pravda like journalistic standard. For example, awhile back a batch of the Clinton emails was released and was prominently reported on Fox and much of the conservative media I read — I looked for the NY Times reporting of that release and found it on page 14 below the fold.
      Another example I remember well is back in 2009 during the financial crisis, a mob gathered around a bank executives home just outside NYC. A young boy was alone in the house facing that very angry mob. Fox covered this event — alone as far as I could tell.

      There is a reason Fox leads in viewership, and that is that they report and comment on news that is largely ignored elsewhere. Much of the viewing public simply refuses to watch Fox or listen/read Rush Limbaugh — and yet claim it to be propaganda.

    • Further to your comment Ron, read this commentary from the Wall Street Journal:
      ___________________

      The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins
      As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.

      By Kimberley A. Strassel  Oct. 13, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET   746  COMMENTS 
      WSJ | 2016-10-13T23:28:00.000Z

      If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women.
      But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7, they still probably haven’t heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much everything she has been accused of.
      It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders. The media has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages to the Trump story. So let’s review what amounts to a devastating case against a Clinton presidency.
      Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her circle of friends “can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents.” She added: “It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.”
      A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she’d done wrong. “Everyone wants her to apologize,” wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles’ heel.”
      Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton’s emails—three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a Republican plot.
      A senior FBI official involved with the Clinton investigation told Fox News this week that the “vast majority” of career agents and prosecutors working the case “felt she should be prosecuted” and that giving her a pass was “a top-down decision.”
      The Obama administration—the federal government, supported by tax dollars—was working as an extension of the Clinton campaign. The State Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
      Worse, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show, took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation. In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief were “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs). Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren’t? Routed to a standard government website.
      The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and money. The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner, suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation official wrote: “Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds crazy to do.”
      The entire progressive apparatus—the Clinton campaign and boosters at the Center for American Progress—appears to view voters as stupid and tiresome, segregated into groups that must either be cajoled into support or demeaned into silence. We read that Republicans are attracted to Catholicism’s “severely backwards gender relations” and only join the faith to “sound sophisticated”; that Democratic leaders such as Bill Richardson are “needy Latinos”; that Bernie Sanders supporters are “self-righteous”; that the only people who watch Miss America “are from the confederacy”; and that New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is “a terrorist.”
      The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton’s pocket. Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event. Other media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.
      Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”
      Voters might not know any of this, because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump. And the press is doing a diligent job of it.
      Write to kim@wsj.com.
      Copyright ©2016 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s