The Moral Retardation of Leftists

February 18, 2007
The Moral Retardation of Leftists
Doug Hagin
We Conservatives often accuse the left of having no moral compass. I am not sure that is quite correct. Everyone has a moral compass, although surely not everyone’s operates in the same manner. I think Conservatives have missed their diagnosis of the left. It is not that they have no moral code, it is that they suffer from a new malady, that malady I will call moral retardation.Now, let me make clear that when I throw such a diagnosis around I do so after much thought and study. I delineate very clearly here between Liberals and Leftists as well. Liberals, I believe are often misguided and just wrong. Certainly, I would not level a charge towards them labeling them as morally dysfunctional. Liberals, while they generally disagree with Conservatives are not people who loathe America; they are not people who cannot differentiate between right and wrong. Leftists, on the other hand, as I will illustrate, suffer from such a breakdown in basic morality that they must be suffering from a very serious malfunction in their morals. They cannot at once possess a well-developed sense of basic morals and hold the positions they often hold. Allow me to explain my theory.During the Vietnam War it was Leftists who marched, chanted, protested, and demonstrated against America’s involvement in that war. They were upset over what they perceived as American imperialism, war mongering, and killing of innocents. Now it might seem plausible that a person would find killing, and war immoral. Yet, when the United States left Vietnam, what happened. Millions in South Vietnam were tortured and brutally murdered by the North Vietnamese. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia slaughtered millions. Where was the outrage and protest from the left? Where was their demand that the killing stop? Where were the marches? Why did they suddenly turn a blind eye towards Communist atrocities? Certainly they moral code was grievously offended by America’s military killing Communist troops trying to subjugate South Vietnam. Why did they not show the same disgust for the REAL atrocities when they began?There is no reasonable defense of this gap in their morality, none at all. Rational, mentally stable people do not condemn war in defense of freedom, then, by their silence condone the slaughter of innocents. Either the Leftists who protested America’s role in Vietnam and then gave a pass to Pol Pot and the NVA were on the Communists side or they were morally retarded and incapable of making the most basic of moral judgments.Look at the Leftists during the Cold War. They practically demanded the United States disarm to prove to the Soviets, our sworn enemies, that we meant them no harm. Of course, it was the Soviet Union which conquered nations, enslaved them, tortured and killed tens upon tens of millions of innocent people. Yet, it was America the Leftists looked at with disapproval and scorn. America had to change, America had to disarm, America, the only thing stopping the evil of Stalinism ruling the world, was the bad guy in their twisted minds. Again, any reasonable person must, upon assessing this evidence, assume either the left wanted Stalinism to rule the globe, or that they were so morally dysfunctional that they could not draw a distinction between the US and the USSR. Let that resonate for a moment or two. The Leftists were not able, or willing, to look at a nation, which allowed its people no human rights and that, was driven to force that evil upon every person on earth, and see anything immoral about that nation. Yet, they had no problem in condemning the nation that prevented the Soviets from dominating the globe. If that is not moral retardation what is?Fast forward to today, to the recent war protests. Fast-forward to the growing number of spineless US politicians who seemingly cannot grasp that we are locked in a struggle with an evil as bad as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Hitler ever presented. Again, while the war protesters call our troops, who liberated Iraq, murderers, they call the terrorists who blow up children and behead innocents freedom fighters! Remember how many times John Kerry, Dick, Durbin, John Murtha, and Ted Kennedy have smeared our troops?Note also the apparent joy these miscreants display when they say that our troops are either losing, have lost, will lose, or are failing, or are part of the problem, or are terrorizing Iraqi children in the middle of the night, or are uneducated, or are as bad as Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler, or are wasting their lives. Of course, do not forget the elation the left now shows over the moves to pass non-binding resolutions, which will certainly embolden the terrorists. They are helping to defeat our troops and their malfunctioning moral codes actually tell them this is a good thing.A good thing to encourage terrorists? A good thing to turn Iraq over to terrorists? A good thing to show American weakness and lack of resolve? A good thing not to allow our troops to do their job? A good thing that our leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath the likes of which the world has very seldom seen? These are good things in the minds of Leftists? History tells us that Leftists look upon evil and fail to condemn it, time after time. Yet, that same history illustrates clearly that the same Leftists look upon good, and upon those that confront evil, and condemn them. Either they are evil, or they are moral retards.

Where Do You Stand?

February 12, 2007


Where Do You Stand?
Dan Abbett

There comes a time when you have to go public with your position on serious and politically charged issues. If you believe the polls, a leap of faith if you ask me, mainstream America wants to see us leave Iraq in the now timeframe, win, lose or draw. The question is rhetorical but the answer is critical. That answer will define our future. On the question of winning or losing in Iraq, where do you stand?

What, you may ask, makes this question key to the future of the West? It depends on who is right in the debate over the true intent and the motivation of what is now referred to as “radical Islam.” To all those who firmly believe that it is our interference in the Middle East that is the cause and fuel of Islamic violence, our departure from the region is deemed the action that will end the jihad that has been pronounced upon us.

To those, including myself, who perceive an enemy determined to achieve our subjugation, only the harshest retribution against such an ideology, inflamed in religious extremism and hatred, can bring a serious end to their plan for global domination. There really is no middle ground to this issue and the position “You” take will determine the consequences. Where do you stand?

The reason for asking this rather straightforward question is in response to a calculated effort, mostly coming from the left, to steep Iraq in failure and defeat. The rationale for their position that we need to end military operations in Iraq is premised on poll results that indicate a majority of Americans now want to see an end to this war.

No doubt, all Americans would like to see this conflict finally end. What is not known are the circumstances that most Americans will accept as satisfactory conditions in Iraq before removing our troops. Where do you stand?

The polls that are sited as indicating that a majority of Americans want us out of Iraq, also indicate by a greater margin that they do not want us to lose. The latter portion of this conflicting response is discarded from the mix, as politicians wax defeatist in their pronouncements for opposing the president’s plan to increase military strength, and his effort to finally bring sectarian violence in Iraq under control. As this information is subjectively framed to qualify their argument, so too does it “frame the president.”

What seems to be a self-serving understanding among politicians and media types, to include both broadcast and print, is that they are the ones who “frame” the debate. This is the essence of this discussion. Who speaks for you, the media or do you speak for yourself? Did you elect your representative to promote his or her personal agenda or to act in your behalf? Where do you stand?

In spite of the rhetorical proclamations of what their vote meant and the circumstances they believed were valid for casting that vote, members of Congress did give the president the power to go to war in Iraq. It is not acceptable for any Congressman to now abdicate that vote for political expediency or to hedge their chances for re-election.

For the second time in just over 30 years, elected representatives of the United States of America are embarking on legislation that will result in our defeat in a military conflict. We are not losing the war in Iraq; it is the United States Congress that is declaring it so. Congress has the power to declare war, they do not have the power to legislate whether we win or lose.

For Bob Dylan, the answer was “Blowin’ in the Wind;” our nation’s leaders need to be more firmly rooted. These are the issues that now require our personal attention. Where do you stand?

Comments: danabbett1@charter.net