Posted on 11/30/2017 1:35:52 PM PST by Kaslin
RUSH: I want to address something here seriously. Nancy Pelosi, predictably, blamed all of this on Trump.
Grab sound bite 23. I want you to hear it again. Just 15 seconds. After suggesting that Conyers should, she realized she stepped in it. She realized that’s a very, very controversial thing to do, so she had to try to soften it at the end of the presser.
PELOSI: There’s a new day. And the courage of the women coming forward is something that is making a big difference. But also the attitude in the country, which I think some of it springs from the election of Donald Trump as president.
RUSH: So some of it springs from the election of Donald Trump. So the reason why our party is in so much trouble is the election of Donald Trump. Now, to a certain extent, that’s true. Donald Trump has driven them crazy. But they were losing elections in great numbers before Trump came along. We’ve documented this, talked about it a lot. The Democrats have been in trouble for a long, long time. The thing that masked it was that Obama was in the White House, and moving his agenda forward.
But out there, all across the fruited plain, the Democrat Party has been imploding. And in their worldview, yeah, the election of Trump does spell big trouble. But that’s not what she means. She is trying to say here that all of these Democrat guys, the news, the talent, the news readers, the executives, the producers, Hollywood, all of these people caught up in these sexual harassment charges and allegations is really because Trump was elected. And she’s attempting to say Trump is this ignoramus, and he’s this barbarian, he’s unsophisticated, and of course that is influencing our culture and behavior.
And I want to seriously tackle this because that’s not at all what’s going on in America today. Back in 1987 when I was in Sacramento I wrote a weekly newspaper column for a local paper. I had writers block one day and I literally could not think of anything to write about. So as a means of trying to overcome it, I started writing down one-sentence thoughts hoping that one of them or two would inspire me into a column idea.
And after I got to about 15 of them, I said, “You know what? This is the column.” Because I was writing sentences that were pithy little philosophical things that I agreed with, that I thought were correct, and they became the 35 Undeniable Truths of Life. I kept going and writing enough of them to get to 750 words, which is your average column length, and then it became known as the 25 Undeniable Truths of Life.
For example, number 24 was, “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.” And it was true then, it’s true now, it’s one of the main drivers of militant feminism, not the only, but it’s a significant player. There was another one that I wrote. “Morality is not defined by individual choice.” That’s all it was. Simple little statement, because even in 1987, I mean, we were coming out of the AIDS scare. Well, weren’t coming out of it; were smack-dab in the middle of it, and it was all Reagan’s fault, if you remember, because Reagan wasn’t talking about it.
The militant political gay movement was all over this as Reagan’s fault. The order of the day, according to the American left back then, was that we conservatives did not have the right to impose our morality on anybody else, that we’re a bunch of Puritans and we’re a bunch of stuffed shirts and we’re a bunch of boring dryballs, and we don’t have the right to tell other people how to live. And it was all part of the aspect of liberalism that came to life based on the nonjudgmentalism.
Liberals do not want to be judged, and there’s a very good reason why. The judgment of liberals would not be positive or uplifting. They don’t want to be judged. They don’t want to be held to convention. They don’t want to be held to any standards, moral or otherwise. But I was making the point that morality is what it is. Morality is not defined by individual choice. You don’t get to choose what’s moral and not. What is moral and immoral is established and known.
And it’s kind of like pornography. You may have trouble defining it, but you know it when you see it. Same thing with morality and immorality. You may have trouble defining it for people, but you know immorality and ill-mannered behavior when you see it. And we raise our children to be moral and well mannered. If we don’t, there’s no telling what individuals are gonna turn out to be. Human beings need to be taught, need to be raised, need to be instructed.
If you have a kid at the dinner table that interrupts people constantly or throws food, you stop ’em and you tell ’em that’s wrong. If they refuse to get the message, you punish them. If they engage in behavior that is harmful to others or themselves, you stop them and tell them and you raise them. You try to raise them with good manners and self-respect, respect for others. And at some point, all of this evolves into you teaching them morality, right and wrong.
Well, for the last 50 years, if not longer, there’s been an attack on that whole premise of right and wrong and who gets to define it. And the left has lived and died with the premise that nobody but they or them get to define it, and it’s an individual choice. Until you walk in the shoes of a liberal, you have no right to judge. You have no right to say what’s right and wrong. And so the offshoot of this is that whatever liberals wanted to do was moral because they wanted to do it. And anybody that came along and judged them and disapproved was attacked.
And it begot the culture war. The culture war is largely over morality, the concepts of right and wrong and whether or not they’re universal or the result of individual choice. And the left has always believed that morality is an individual choice, that you don’t get to define it for anybody else, and neither does society. And that attitude is what I believe has led us to today.
There are consequences for all actions and inactions, and bad behavior, immoral behavior, incorrect behavior is always going to carry a price at some point. There will always be consequences for it. How do you explain all of these wealthy men, Matt Lauer reputedly making $25 million a year, Harvey Weinstein, multi, multimillion, all of these people involved have incredible wealth.
They also had positions of power where there was nobody that could tell ’em what they could do and couldn’t do. And when they did behave badly, there was no punishment. Everybody got out of the way. Everybody was afraid of them. What lessons were they taught? I suggest to you none. They clearly didn’t have any conscience, or, if they did, they were able to override it and subordinate it to their personal desires.
But this is why we’re where we are. And of course the people who advocate for morality and attempt to instill and live by concepts of right and wrong are mocked and laughed at and made fun of. And they’re considered to be very dull and boring. And they’re usually religious, and that means we can really attack them. And they just do that because they’re so boring, nobody would want to have sex with them anyway, and nobody would want to hang around with ’em anyway, nobody would want to have fun with ’em anyway. They’re so dull and boring that they give themselves self-respect by telling themselves they’re good people.
And the liberals just roll right over them with this idea that they are the oddballs, that they’re the kooks, that they pose the threat, because they are attempting to impose their morality on everybody. Much like the left accuses the United States of trying to impose freedom on the rest of the world. Freedom is not an imposition. Morality could be, depending on your proclivities.
But I really think this is the root of it here, folks. It’s taken a little while here, but the people who are being discovered to have engaged in this behavior, which is clearly reprehensible and perverted and whatever descriptive you want to come up with, no doubt are of the belief that morality doesn’t apply to them and that it’s nobody’s business anyway.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Cal Thomas has a piece today, “The Value of High Moral Standards Has Never Been More Apparent.” Who decided traditional virtues were no longer viable? Somebody do a study, find out people were being damaged, are they being taught too much virtue? When did this happen, he asks.
I cannot articulate as well as Rush.
But s far as I am concerned, our nation began its spiral into decay when shame left the marketplace of ideas and ideals.
It looks like the culture of depravity is about to come apart. God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.
People expect morals without moral absolutes.
The so-called “sexual liberation” combined with a war on accountability gets us exactly what we see in society today.
There are two threads of our culture, over the past half millennium:
1) Puritanism, which gave us our great country
2) Progressivism, which would destroy it
Matt Lauer's Wikipedia page says his parents came from two different backgrounds, and as a result he was raised without any religion. Lo and behold the results.
Progressives are malignancies on every civil society.
The problem with nonbelievers is not that they believe nothing. It’s that they will believe anything. They even believe that right and wrong dont matter, that families are unimportant and that promiscuity and unfaithfulness are acceptable.
Promiscuity alone has destroyed societies and cultures. No human society without strong family units ever amounted to anything. The Progressive and his HIgh Priest, the Psychologist, know this and are aware of what they are doing. It is a purposeful assault on western civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
