With one of the more important presidential elections of a lifetime a mere six weeks away, the lines of demarcation between liberals and conservatives seems wider and deeper than ever. Perhaps it is because the lion’s share of my daily reading is of material and from authors supportive of conservative principles that I just don’t objectively understand how the liberal mind works. With what little liberal copy I do read, I hear that those of us on the conservative side of the line are filled with hatred, not just for the Obama regime but for the American people and our nation. We are labeled as intolerant, old fashioned, inflexible, misogynistic zealots driven solely by profits and wealth while using religious and moral hypocrisy to justify our objectives. The truth about the foundation of our core beliefs is never mentioned. We are likened to fascists and heartless, profit-seeking opportunists.
A former business partner, long ago deceased, told me, then a young lawyer, that if something was logical or made sense, he could understand it. I did not realize at the time that there was much greater depth to that observation than I thought upon first hearing it. Over the course of practicing law and mediating disagreements for some 23 years, I negotiated countless settlements of all kinds of disputes and lawsuits. One of the guiding principles I discovered in order for something to be acceptable to either side was that there has to be objective evidence of its existence. That is known as objective fairness. There has to be some basis in law, fact, or nature for something to be believable and acceptable.
A claim for loss of income for example must be supported by some form of evidence that substantiates one’s inability to perform a certain type of work for a defined period of time. A mere claim that someone was injured and could not work, without documentation, is worthless. Substantiation might come from historical evidence. How much was this person earning before the injury? And what do others similarly employed earn and gain over time? Once cannot hope to earn a certain amount and demonstrate a compensable award; nor can the claimant offer an experiment in supporting such a demand.
This is the manner in which conservative political analysis proceeds. The statistics and facts regarding unemployment, deficit spending, and even our nation’s credit rating bear out the failure of the current administration. Natural law guides us to understand that certain human behavior and choices are unacceptable and non-negotiable.
For liberals, everything is negotiable, from one’s choice of gender to determining the beginning or end of a life. It is inconceivable to think how one could operate a business or maintain a loving and functional family where some individuals believe everything is negotiable and subject to change, expansion, and unlimited progression. But liberals have no issue with unpredictability and increased governmental intrusions because they long for a political nanny state.
Natural change may be an unavoidable fact of life, but not for politics and government. I use the adjective “natural” to distinguish events in our lives that are beyond our control, like the death of a loved one or an unpreventable medical illness. Granted, progressive ideas have given women and other formerly excluded minorities the right to vote and more, much more. Medicare and Social Security are likewise rooted in progressive thinking. Progress has its place in science, medicine, and projects at large, but not in government. Government should progress in providing what is essentially mandated by our Constitution and not by expanding in size and scope in our daily lives. The more the government provides, the more beholden we are to it instead of the other way around, which is as it should be.
I am conservative because most of the conservatives I know can and do substantiate their politics with logic and facts, either current or historical. Liberals, from my experience, base theirs in large part on ideals, hopes, and experiments. That is not to say that these factors have no place in politics; but if the medical profession relied solely upon them, we would be no farther along the trail of cures and practical application of discoveries than when it all started centuries ago. Instead of utilizing and applying the fixes that have proven to be economically or politically effective, liberals want more social and economic experiments. They believe there is simply no point in conserving anything, save for the environment. For them, there is never enough. Never enough differences among us that must be recognized and accommodated; never enough government- funded programs to help all those newly-dubbed diverse individuals; never enough taxes to fund all that is perceived as necessary.
The lyrics of a song penned by well-known liberal songwriter and performer Sheryl Crow claim “it’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you got.” If that is true (and I believe it is), we don’t need more government programs or so-called inclusiveness. Instead of expanding an already- grossly overgrown government, it should be contained and put on a diet to shed thousands of useless bureaucrats and overpriced toilet seats.
I know that conservative elected officials are part of the problem. I understand how political deals are brokered and implemented. I am not naive. That’s been going on since embryonic forms of government were first established. The difference has to do with expectations and fundamental political beliefs. Am I here to serve my nation? Or was our government designed and intended to serve all citizens?
That brings me full circle to where I started with all this . . . that I don’t understand liberal politics that begs the question: “how can anyone with any degree of logic and moral fiber NOT vote for Mitt Romney?” Phrased conversely, why would anyone similarly endowed vote for Barack Hussein Obama? The answer is self evident. Those who will vote for BHO must be devoid of logic or moral convictions rooted in natural law. I am reluctant to broad-brush so many hard-working, law- abiding Americans; but I cannot explain it any other way. It may appear to be a mere difference in opinions, but opinions are often not very objective. They’re opinions; and like that certain part of the human anatomy, everybody has one.
copyright Russell Moker 2013
Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
“Liberals, from my experience, base theirs (politics) in large part on ideals, hopes, and experiments.”
That defines the current state of education under liberal unions. So there’s your answer.
And from your observation has come a modern maxim; “Theory is a root of evil”
liberals ,may base (politics) on ideals, hopes and experiments,but they have always wanted to socialize ameria,since t. rooservelt’s days,we ,are that close ,to loosing our “freedom”,for-fathers came to america for. if obama stays in ,expect this:: will see europe socialism, new world order, martial law to fullest,with fema prision camps. in for rude awakening ,america has never seen !!! “GOD”,bless america,keep her safe,socialism out. “proud to be an american and what she stands for:”FREEDOM”. pl,orl,fla
Guest Writer,
Nice well thought out article you wrote. I appreciate your sincerity and candor.
However, you miss the point that many if not most neo-conservatives misses, you can’t understand the liberal mindset. Oh, I understand the liberal mindset perfectly and I know all the reasons they deny the truth that we so obviously see. But for me to tell you those reasons, or anyone, you have to believe and or accept some other concepts regarding man.
One of those concepts is evil and sin. Another is the duality of man. And finally one has to accept the fallibility of man. These are the main differences distinguishing liberals from anyone else. (The religion and philosophy of Islam does not count as it is so radically different, Western philosophy and ideology cannot be applied to it in any way.)
Man has a dual nature, and that nature can be accounted for by God or indirectly by the Law’s of Nature and of Nature’s God. Man can be classified into two distinct categories: Good and evil, right and wrong, givers and takers, moral and immoral, righteous and unrighteous, reasonable and unreasonable, heroes and cowards, unselfish and selfish, meek and arrogant, and most any other opposing concepts.
Sin is the result of evil. Evil is the thoughts all humans carry within them that contradicts good. Simply stated, if it’s not good, then it’s evil. Sin is evil stressed or shown by the physical results. To deny good by actions, even by words is sin.
In man’s sub-conscience there is a will, a philosophy so-to-speak, that identifies him as a person, a distinct individual. We normally only see a small part of man’s will as many factors precludes and limits him from showing his true being, but each person does in fact show bits and pieces of his innermost self, and we witness this by his actions and comments as well as how he personally upholds himself.
No man can reason with evil, we can only try and reason with the sin or at least confront it and limit it. Man still retains his thoughts of evil and those thoughts of evil does deny the truth. Fore if this was not true than you could reason with anyone and they would accept the facts they could not disprove, or at least acknowledge them as being valid. Humanists in general is a good example of people who cannot be reasoned with. Yet on certain topics they seem to be most reasonable. The reason for this is, if a humanist is open to reason on a certain topic, it merely means the topic was favorable to him from the beginning, which means it is more of a matter of degree of the evil or sin being discussed than it is the morality or right or wrong of the topic.
Liberals cannot see, understand, or much less accept the facts of most conservative viewpoints and concepts because it is contrary, somewhere, in their sub-conscience, their philosophy and acceptance of life. It matters NOT to the amount of facts presented or the logic involved, if a person wants and believes in something deeply enough, he will NOT change his opinion. In holding such a dogmatic view, what I would call a non-factual, non-basis dogmatic view of life, that person has to have deeper underlying motives that is based upon evil. Greed, selfishness, arrogance, power, money, self-righteousness, lust, you name it. If it’s a wrong, immoral or bad concept, it’s basis lies in evil and we see it as the denial of the truth.
So the question becomes: How can a person change these concepts in another in order they may see the truth and logically submit to it? You can’t, and no amount of arguing is going to change this. It’s simply because of the nature of that person and what lies within them.
And the real question becomes: What are we to do with such people? Let them be? That don’t work as you know you can’t change their minds. Are we to oppose them in other ways? Are we to limit them? Are we to imprison or annihilate them? Fore if something is not done to reign these people in, they will surely destroy humanity and the world. The truth is not in them, only evil and we see this by their words and actions every day. Either you will submit to them or destroy them, the choice is yours. I’m just here as an observer giving a few pointers.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
“And the real question becomes: What are we to do with such people? Let them be? That don’t work as you know you can’t change their minds. Are we to oppose them in other ways? Are we to limit them? Are we to imprison or annihilate them? Fore if something is not done to reign these people in, they will surely destroy humanity and the world. The truth is not in them, only evil and we see this by their words and actions every day. Either you will submit to them or destroy them, the choice is yours. I’m just here as an observer giving a few pointers. ”
First, we don’t play God.
Second, we have a job to do. Evangelize them all and let God sort them out.
Third, the final act is already written in Revelations.
You ask, “What are we to do with such people?”
Why do you feel that you even need to ask that question?
I used to be so clear black and white, right and wrong in my opinions that I loved ridiculing them and began to “hate them” because of what they were doing to “my nation”.
One day, God pulled me up short and asked me, “What part of any of that is “LOVE”?
Then God went about showing me how alike the two parties have become and how we had all been deceived by them. Yes, deceived.
It is not, “destroy or be destroyed”. That is a lie of Satan. That lie is based in fear, not love. The lie is, “one of us has to be the winner, and it ought to be me because I am on the side of right”. The Truth is, God is the winner in the end, and if we who are barely saved suffer these lies of Satan until we are taught the truth, what then of the unrighteous and those that do not know God?
The choices we have, if we know what is right, is to do it. For we will be judged for our actions as well as our inaction’s.
The real battle isn’t for the presidency, it is for men’s souls. And there, there lies eternity and all it encompasses.
Get your sights back on heavenly things Michael, because if you look too long at the evil on the earth it will overcome you.
Michael, your well articulated reply could be an addendum or continuation of my original. You went much deeper than I but I agree. My spiritual mentor is St. Augustine of Hippo, a champion of man’s duality. Thank you for your lucid and interesting response.
Mike360000 – Very well said…. If godly love and reasoning does not change their hearts, the Sovereign God of all that there is will very soon separate the righteous from the unrighteous.
Russell, thank you for an excellent article. Many of those voting for Obama are indeed devoid of logic or moral convictions. An origin of their disabilities is a growing sociopathy that comes from our dehumanizing cyber society’s electronic cocooning and information overload, i.e., people are rapidly losing their abilities to empathize, speak, and love. Combine that with long-term strategic psyops by America’s enemies and you get a national zombie incubator that self-genocides. Clever. http://elect.ErnestHuberForCongress.com/
Mr Huber,
You seem to overlook the fact that Americans are their own worst enemies.
They were in 1860 and it has continued unabated until this very day, all the while increasing in scope and intensity.
While I have absolutely no liking for Romney, he got one thing right. His statements concerning the 47% and how they would never vote for him. You also must understand that there is a large part of the voter base in your district that will NEVER vote for you under any conditions. You can try and appease them all you want and they will only use it against you. You can make a much more significant impact by standing for the truth, calling a spade a spade and embracing the people that will vote for you. And when elected, remember this in stone! YOU do NOT represent those people who did not vote for you EXCEPT under the conditions where it warrants your personal involvement concerning matters of law that is normally handled by US House Representatives in regards to any constituent in their district. Other than that you owe your opponents NOTHING, and anything other than what is required from you will be used against you!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Note this:
One of the final conclusions from the humanist/liberal/Marxist mindset is that they will eventually justify their positions and their philosophy and ideology as being true and righteous by committing genocide against anyone and everyone that opposes them.
I was reading somewhere in Western Journalism today, about how the liberals believed that their philosophy and ideology had not worked so far simply because of the opposition against it and that it had not been given a fair chance among society and governments. They, the liberal crowd believed that they needed free reign in enacting all their socialistic governing laws in order that it be implemented fairly and then it would work according to the way Marx and others claimed.
Now we must understand that they will never have full control or consent of the people in order to conduct this, that society must be controlled, led and even forced to comply with the tenets of Marxism before they can have a free hand. Fabian Marxism, while the standard in the Western World and it being largely implemented in moving the world to a New World Order, a Globalistic One World Society, will never fully work and never be fully implemented until all its’ critics are silenced. This also goes along in conjunction with the other article posted on Western Journalism concerning the large % of people who now favors a one party system. (I believe in a one party system but it is based on Jeffersonian philosophy and not Marxist philosophy.) This article shows nothing other than the Marxists/liberal becoming brazen and bold enough that they feel comfortable stating their next objectives of eliminating further opposition concerning political parties. This is only another step leading their eventual claims that people who disagree and resist their efforts should be fined, imprisoned and or exterminated for the good of the cause, which would according to them, finally bring world peace and prosperity.
People, you ignorant lot, you don’t even know who your enemies are!
You believe you can appease these people and be gentlemen with them and show honor among them. I am here to tell you that you cannot be gentlemen to them, show them any honor or pay them any respect. You cannot compromise with them and you cannot debate them. Their reasoning is already accounted for within themselves and they can see no other way. It is shear evil that drives them and all they understand is the point of a bayonet. Fore that is Chaos and that is what composes evil and Satan. Look up the definition for Chaos and you will see it means a state of confusion, no direction or logical purpose of being. That everything is by chance. And now you also know the foundations behind evolution, it is Chaos at its’ best! It humanism and Marxism at its’ best!
Know your enemy…
Michael– Deo Vidnicabamur
Russel, you asked this question and I hope to answer it.
“how can anyone with any degree of logic and moral fiber NOT vote for Mitt Romney?”
I don’t put my trust IN anybody. Therefore, I analyze people and situations before I make a decision upon whether they are “good people” or bad people.
I don’t mean that in the sense of righteous or unrighteous, but whether the individual is someone I would trust with the shirt off my back.
Obama would take my shirt and then tell me it didn’t belong to me.
Romney would take my shirt, pilfer the pockets and if it had any value, he’d hand it to Obama.
Since when did logic play in an election? All the rhetoric is put out there to move people emotionally. It doesn’t have a thing to do with logic. If it did, then everybody would have woke up and voted for Ron Paul and we would have gotten our nation back out of the hands of those that love to take bribes.
It’s all about emotions. And they use so-called “moral” issues to emotionally blackmail us into voting for them.
More than 90% of the people that vote in elections make their decision based upon what some talking head convinced them to do. This saying is true, “If you say something long enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it, even if it is a lie”.
Which is better (and forgive the extreme example), a pedophile that wants to ban abortion so there’s more victims available OR a sociopath that will tell you everything you want to hear so that he can set you up for the kill?
The answer of course is neither. Now, most people could see the black and white truth of the above example; however, because of the undo influence of the press and radio and spin doctors, very few people can see that both Obama and Romney are two sides to the same coin.
People will shout, “Anything to get Obama out!”
When I was young, and I wanted something desperately that we couldn’t afford or wasn’t right because somebody else was getting it or doing it, my mother used to ask, “If they jumped off of a bridge would you do it?”
I can neither vote for Obama or Romney because I am a moral person and my conscience won’t let me.
@ConcreteBlonde
You’ve said it ALL!
You’ve said it near perfectly!
I ABSOLUTELY can’t disagree with the very first thing you’ve said!
It is my thoughts also!
You’ve spoken in my stead!
Thank You!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Thank you! Most people get PO’d when I speak my mind, LOL!
Michael,
Please make sure you are sitting down while you read this. I’m going to ruin your good opinion of me.
I take prayer seriously. I take my relationship with God seriously and the one thing I’ve learned over the years is never be afraid to admit you are wrong. Pride goeth before a fall.
That being said, I also believe that a lot of Christians have been praying for me to see the truth, LOL because what I’ve learned today totally changed some of my views.
First, there was the debate last night. If I could have put a sock down Biden’s throat to shut him up so that I could hear the debate, I would have. I don’t think that laughing at the murders that occurred at our embassy is anything to laugh about. I also don’t think that the dire straits our citizens are in because of their policies is a laughing matter, but he was laughing. At us!
Today, I watched a video from Al Jazeera TV (spelling?). It was posted by what I think is a Christian organization. I wouldn’t have seen it on TV because I don’t watch that stuff. However, the guy they were interviewing was part of Obama’s Kenyan family. Look up “Musa Ismail Obama” and watch all three parts of that interview because you are going to be totally PO’d to find out that our President is funneling money to Al Qaeda through a “benevolent society” set up by the Obama family in Kenya. It also goes to help train students in Sharia Law…that violent anti-christian murderous group that is definitely about Jihad.
There’s those videos on youtube and then there’s the fact that Obama is a gay man that supports gay issues publicly. That’s through Rev. Wright’s underground black gay men’s group that sets up gay men with wives for political gain through his “church”.
However, back a couple of years ago, there was a special on PBS that exposed the fact that the men in the middle east think nothing of raping little boys and selling them into bondage to serve as prostitutes. They feminize them, teach them to dance, etc. These pedophiles are Obama’s friends.
Now, another point which many of you aren’t even aware of is that for over a decade, a friend of mine and a group of women have been fighting for custody of their children against an orginization that has marched with gay pride groups trying to get it legalized to allow men to have sex with boys. NAMBLA
These same NAMBLA perverts started a Father’s Rights group to fight women who want to take their “sex toys” away. The sorry part is that they are winning.
The scary part is that there are judges in our country that are either members of those organizations or are sympathetic to that way of life and side with the perverts. Therefore, abused children get sent back to the abuser.
What does this have to do with the election?
I believe that if Obama is given another 4 yrs. he will perform his own Jihad against us using executive orders to back it up.
Romney might be a lot of things but I don’t believe he is muslim. I pray to God he is not. Ryan is a Catholic and although that doesn’t say much about him, I don’t believe he would deny who the Catholic church believes is God and follow after Allah.
4 more years and we will all be either converted to Islam or in prison or dead.
So, even though I doubt Romney, I don’t have a choice. I don’t want Al Qaeda in my backyard. Do you?
I appreciate all the responses. They made me think more about this. I am certain about one thing, though; not voting for either candidate is a sure fire way to perpetuate evil and allow it to flourish. If we cannot choose a president based on what we take the time to learn on our own, we may as well scrap the whole process and choose a (benevolent?) dictator. The electoral system was not designed to necessarily select THE BEST person for the job, but the better of the two or three candidates who make it on the ballot on election day. I felt very disinclined to cast my vote for McCain four years ago but I did and even though he didn’t win, I did NOT sanction the selection of BHO. I believe every voter must acknowledge the importance of their individual vote. By casting one, even for a fringe candidate or independent, you are least a recording a gesture that neither of the two party candidates were acceptable to you. Whatever you do, please vote. It may be however that abstaining or voting for a third party candidate is essentially a vote for BHO
Why is not voting for Romney a vote for Obama but not voting for Obama is not a vote for Romney?
Well, I suppose that could be true. However, incumbents have an historical advantage. Not voting for either or anyone is really my concern. BHO also has what I called the lemming effect – many more are likely to blindly follow him over the cliff to destruction.
Sadly, you are right there!
Actually, isn’t the Electoral College the ones who ultimately decide the vote?????
And they pretty much vote for whoever THEY think is the best of the choices.
@ConcreteBlone
Actually it “supposed” to be up to each state as to how they determine their Electoral College Votes are levied out. Originally it was the choice of each Electoral representative as to how they voted. The 2 party system and them closing off or limiting outside parties effectively nullified the choice of free vote for the Elector. However the system was still viable, and there are ways to actually improve it yet.
I liked the statement, “If we cannot choose a president based on what we take the time to learn on our own, we may as well scrap the whole process and choose a (benevolent?) dictator.”
The system was originally designed and intended to let ONLY a certain and predetermined amount of people who were (QUALIFIED) vote, with these people having a vested interest in the country making them deserving of the eligibility to vote. I’d say today, only about 15% of the voters are actually capable of voting. Also each state had their own rules for how they allowed the vote. Sadly the federal government has come in and usurped all these state powers. So, yes the country mite as well have a benevolent dictator, but the elitists will never allow that. NOT allow their dictator to be benevolent.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur