Liars in High Places

ClintonLiarby Jon N. Hall    4/16/15
Americans are queer for liars. We just love them. If that were not so, then we wouldn’t constantly be electing the most mendacious candidates to the highest political offices. And when we discover that we’ve been lied to by some squalid politician, we’d be a whole helluva lot less forgiving. But to understand “our thing” for liars, we must first understand what a lie is.

Of course, that “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Oh, sorry about that. What I meant to say is that a lie is a falsehood that is presented as the truth and that is meant to deceive or mislead; perhaps this qualifies:

… I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time — never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

You have to admire someone who can look you squarely in the eye, wag his index finger at you, and vociferously deny what is in fact the truth. But Pres. Clinton may not have believed that he had actually lied. You see, “it depends on what the meaning of [sexual relations] is.” By Clinton’s lights, receiving oral sex isn’t sex. Who knew?

More than anyone else, it was Clinton who drove the Lewinsky scandal. Clinton’s lies and language games were what plunged the nation and the federal government into his sleazy swamp. And it was all unnecessary, because if his objective was to hang onto his job, Clinton didn’t need to lie. Indeed, he may have avoided impeachment altogether had he come out in the beginning and admitted to being the recipient of certain unsought-for attentions. Had he admitted upfront to a moment of weakness, the existence of a stained blue dress would have been assumed; it wouldn’t have had any power to damage. But no, Bubba had to lie.

And having lied, Clinton guaranteed his impeachment, as perjury in a grand jury is a felony, a high crime and therefore impeachable. The fellatio with an underling off the oval office was tawdry. But perjury, that’s big. Senators who might overlook the sex (or whatever you want to call it) weren’t going to overlook perjury. Had Clinton confessed to everything in the beginning, House Investigative Counsel David Schippers, a lifelong Democrat, could not have said:

The president … has lied under oath in a civil deposition, lied under oath in a criminal grand jury. He lied to the people. He lied to his Cabinet. He lied to his top aides. And now he’s lied under oath to the Congress of the United States. There’s no one left to lie to.

But all that lying didn’t hurt Clinton too much with the public. And now he’s an elder “statesman,” the Big Dog; he’s Elvis, and all is forgiven. (Christopher Hitchens used Schippers’ “no one left to lie to” as the title of a 1999 book that’s still available in paperback and now in e-book. In 1999, Hitchens discussed his book for an hour on Book TV.)

For the political class, lying to the public is no big deal, as they’re rarely held accountable. The political class has their apologists in the media who tell us that “everybody lies about sex,” and that “they all do it.” The media seems to be trying to condition the American people into accepting lying by politicians in high places.

It’s instructive to watch the Truth Revolt video of Clinton’s “that woman” press conference as it goes long enough to include the hearty standing ovation he was given by the nation’s journalists. The media can’t resist a bravura performance by a master liar.

During the Anthony Weiner scandal, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell expressed incredulity (video) that an elected official would have to resign because of lying. Given his position on lying, why believe O’Donnell about anything?

As for who is the more accomplished liar, Clinton or Obama, I’d have to give the gold medal to Obama. If you Google “Obama lies” with quotation marks, you’ll get thousands of hits, including Obama Lies. Obama even won PolitiFact’s 2013 Lie of the Year. Of course, neither one of them has any shame, but lying seems to come more naturally to Obama. Lying is Obama’s default position, his first refuge; it’s his go-to response: Don’t look here, there’s “not even a smidgeon of corruption” (short clip).

The problem for serial liars is that eventually they run out of an essential capital — credibility. Once the liar’s credibility is used up, he’s done. The question for those who still support Barack Hussein Obama is why do they believe anything he says? If he lied about that, he’ll lie about this. Is it rational to believe Obama when he says Iran will not get nukes?

Recently, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Sen. Harry Reid about his 2012 lie concerning GOP candidate Mitt Romney. On the Senate floor, Reid had said: “Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.” Ms. Bash asked Reid if he had any regrets because “some people have even called it McCarthyite.” Reid answered: “Romney didn’t win, did he?”

(You can watch the video of Bash’s interview at American Thinker. But I must take issue with James Longstreet’s criticism of Bash for having no “follow-up” question (like his suggested “That makes you a liar, Senator Reid, doesn’t it?”) and for his scare quotes around “journalist.” Notice that it was Dana Bash who got the interview we’re all talking about, and it was Dana Bash who got Reid to reveal his corruption. Bash pressed Reid about as hard as anyone could; she deserves high marks.)

What to do about Reid? As for expulsion, that takes 67 votes, some of which would have to be Democrat votes. Democrats surely don’t want to reduce their minority numbers any further. And if they tried to relieve Reid of his leadership position, he might up and quit the Senate altogether. Maybe it’s not too late to censure Reid. After all, it only became possible in January. Let’s see how many Senate Democrats will go on record as defenders of this unapologetic unregenerate liar.

Americans are “queer for liars” only in high places. (Even the boorish Lawrence O’Donnell can get quite worked up about lying when the person he accuses isn’t an elected official.) Although they may give politicians a pass on lying, in their dealings with everybody else, Americans despise lying. In business, commerce, and with family and friends, Americans demand the truth. When you discover that your spouse or business partner has lied to you, it’s a big deal, a betrayal, nothing is the same thereafter. But when some scoundrel in D.C. lies to you, you let it pass.

Americans have it exactly wrong on liars in high places. We should hold government officials to (at least) the same standards regarding the truth as we do everyone else. What can one say about a people, a nation, who tolerates abject lying in their leaders?

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. • (1766 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Liars in High Places

  1. Jerry Richardson says:

    Jon N. Hall,

    Good article. You are pointing out some very sad but important truth.

    You have to admire someone who can look you squarely in the eye, wag his index finger at you, and vociferously deny what is in fact the truth.
    As for who is the more accomplished liar, Clinton or Obama, I’d have to give the gold medal to Obama…Lying is Obama’s default position, his first refuge; it’s his go-to response: Don’t look here, there’s “not even a smidgeon of corruption” (short clip)

    What is even sadder to me is that when someone, Barack Obama, has been documented time and time again lying, people will turn-around and vote him back into office. We will never have a real chance to fix this sickness unless voters start holding politicians accountable for lying—and vote them out of office.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    I agree that Slick Barry is even more pathologically dishonest than Slick Willie, as can be seen by the fact that the latter tried to find lies that weren’t exactly lies (no doubt he was thinking in terms of perjury laws). But I think the preference for blatant, pathological dishonesty is a Demagogue preference, and has been ever since they lost with (relatively) honest candidates in the 1980s. Their bought voters (the leeches of the leeches-and-sheep coalition) don’t care as long as they get their candy, and their dupes (the sheep) are (dare I say it?) willfully blind to the lies.

  3. Anniel says:

    Billy Boy Clinton paved the way for all the high-stakes liars who followed him. Monica Lewinski wouldn’t raise a single Democrat’s eyebrow today. “No one left to lie to” is still true everyday as Bill and Hill and Obama continue their lying ways. As for what is left of Harry Reid, one can almost feel sorry for him because he has sunk so far.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is a worthwhile article to read as well in connection with this topic: Here’s Why Women Voted for Bill Clinton.

    Male voters were equally divided between Clinton and Dole, giving 44 percent of their votes to each candidate. But among women, Clinton cleaned up, with 54 percent of the female vote; Dole got 37 percent.

    Kristol joked that opponents of women’s suffrage obviously had been right to fear giving women the vote. What we’ve just witnessed is ”the feminization” of politics, he said.

    But, why? my guy pals wondered. If women hate cheating guys so much, how could they vote for one?

    Simple. Because women hate poverty even more. Even a sliver of financialinsecurity gives most of us the jitters, especially if we have kids or plan to have them.

    A man may break your heart by frolicking with some other woman – or leaving you for her. But you can get over that. However, when he cleans out the bank account and leaves you broke, that’s what really hurts. When he refuses to pay child support, that’s real pain – for you and the kids.

    Even for happily married women, money is an everyday concern.

    While male voters fret over the national deficit, women voters worry about the deficit closer to home. Will there be money to help send the kids to college? Will there be enough money to care for Mom and Dad as they age and their health fails? Will there be money to pay the nursing home if it becomes necessary for them to enter one?

    Any questions? Women have tipped the balance over to the nanny state. Lying thus becomes a secondary concern, at best, as long as the politician in question is supporting “free stuff.” The balance between liberty and security has been lost.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This fear of insecurity means that women vote for the status quo, regardless of what it is, as long as it’s more or less acceptable. Before the Great Society, this made women more conservative than liberal. But not the status quo is a cradle-to-grave welfare state, and so women vote to keep it rather than risk the consequences of change.

      Of course, those are only tendencies. Plenty of women vote conservatively today, especially married women. But as single women become ever more numerous, especially hyper-educated single women who go to work inside the government (or related organizations), this matters less and less.

      • M Farrell says:


        Don’t forget that “Julia” (and pajama boy) are the Left’s prototypes– Julia doesn’t need (nor want) a man/ husband/ traditional family when there is Uncle Sam to supply and subsidize every aspect and stage of her life– Government is the desired father/brother/ husband substitute– (I don’t even want to think about what the deal is with pajama boy)–

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Good points, M. And it’s not like I want to go off on women. But it is what it is. Hopefully women will begin to get a clue and understand that running up debt and growing government out of control is a threat to their security as well.

          Plus, I’d like to think that Americans, of all people, would have the dignity, strength, and moral character not to pass on debt and destruction to later generations all to pamper themselves in the present. I’m afraid I might lose that bet though. Probably already have.

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    In this hall of shame for world-class liars do not leave out Hillary, here is a report on her latest shameless lie to the American people:

    Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton misrepresented her grandparents’ immigration status during a speech in Iowa – and that’s not the first time she did that.

    BuzzFeed reported Clinton claimed all four of her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, despite the fact public census records show only one, her paternal grandfather, Hugh Rodham Sr., was born outside American, in England. She made the claim while telling a story that furthers the idea immigrants come to the United States for economic opportunity.

    Her speech: “We are turning down people who really want to work. I mean, they are here to work. And a lot of them now have children who are American citizens and they are doing the best they can to try to make a good life for themselves and their families. And you know, I think if we were to just go around this room, there are a lot of immigrant stories. All my grandparents, you know, came over here and you know my grandfather went to work in a lace mill in Scranton, Pennsylvania and worked there until he retired at 65.”

    Hillory Misrepresents

  6. Jerry Richardson says:

    And the liberal lying problem is not just with the high-level political liars. Lying is endemic throughout modern liberalism/progressivism:

    Left-wing wacko Sarah Silverman was busted telling a lie about gender discrimination she faced when she was first starting out:

    In an April 6 wage-discrimination-activism video for Levo League, Silverman accused New York Comedy Club owner Al Martin of having paid her less than a male comic for doing the same work:

    “I was out with my friend Todd Barry and we were doing sets around town together, and I was pretty well-known already, and we both did back-to-back 15-minute sets at this club, the New York Comedy Club, and he paid me 10 bucks . . . and we were outside talking and Todd somehow brought up that he, you know, mentioned that he got 60 bucks,” she said.

    “So I went back inside and I asked the owner Al Martin and I said, ‘Al, why did you pay me $10 and you paid Todd Barry $60?’ And he, it was so perfect,” Silverman continued, laughing. “He goes, ‘Oh, did you want a $60 spot?’ It was symbolic, I didn’t need $60, but, you know it was pretty s****y.” Wow!

    “Pretty s****y” indeed! Just one problem: That didn’t actually happen.

    Another Day, Another Liberal Lie

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I don’t think like this, Jerry, so it’s hard to know if I’m just intellectualizing. But to the best of my understanding, there is no capital-t “Truth” in the Progressive worldview. Everything is a narrative. And if everything is a narrative (that is, just a story…a good one if it suits a social purpose) then do you suppose some of these people, at least to some extent, literally lose touch with truth, that it doesn’t even occur to them (much) to parse things in terms of truth and lies?

      Granted, adding politics to the mix makes it worse because they’re almost to a man — left or right — liars, or make lying their trade. This is how I understand Brian Williams, for example. He must be somewhat perplexed, for if you grow up in a culture and are surrounded by people who daily lie — and even use it as a stepping-stone to the presidency — you must be wondering, “What’s the big deal?”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Obviously, none of us can understand exactly why someone literally has no regard for truth, but your explanation certainly seems a reasonable one.

      • M Farrell says:

        – “Everything is narrative”– is a dreadful verdict to be declared on a society– What separates human beings from other creatures is largely our self-conscious ability to linguistically communicate, reason and relate to each other– When Words, statements, verbal exchanges no longer have understandable meaning (implying that they mean what they purport to mean), we have descended to a sub-human level– We can no longer communicate or reason with each other if the meaning of any given statement is flexible/relative to the whim of the moment or the emotional pique of either the speakers or listeners (or is just plain intentionally false because we think we can play the other guy for a sucker)– What is the point of a conversation where what is spoken is known by both ( or most) parties not to be true– You might as well be making quack- quack duck noises at each other– In fact it is worse because such habitual lying ultimately generates hostility between the parties because regardless if someone is lying, they still seem to object to being lied to– With the incessant relativity implied in”everything is narrative” we are destroying language itself , our ability to respectfully communicate with each other with any level of trust, and the very substance of what defines us as human.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Misuse of language can be considered subhuman, but it’s very unfortunate that lying, like so many moral offenses, is a basic part of the human condition. This precise point is made at one point in Mugger Blood. the 30th book in the Destroyer series, when Remo and Chium are questioning a young mugger. When he starts to lie, Remo points out that animals don’t lie, humans do — and if he’s a human, then he will receive rough summary justice. So he chooses to tell the truth.

          • M Farrell says:

            I pulled out my copy of “Mugger Blood”– I had forgotten how funny and non-PC the “Destroyer” series is– It is the kind of satire/societal commentary that may only possible in the genre of pulp fiction–Now, I will probably not be able to resist going back to reread some of the other books in the series– Truely a guilty pleasure–

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Good points, M.

          And your post spurred me to think in broader terms in regards to “everything is a narrative.” Our religion, for instance, could be called a narrative written over all that is. We have a “narrative” of living as a husband, father, boss, or friend. That is, we all play different roles, and there’s nothing inherently wrong about that.

          I guess the difference comes when one doesn’t know one is playing a role and mistakes wishful thinking for reality. I doubt there is any harm in the profession of acting, for example. I would suppose the number of people who think they really are Richard III is vanishingly small.

          But there are millions who believe that CO2 is a deadly poison. There are millions who believe Keynesian economics (that more government control can produce greater prosperity). Millions believe that men are no different from women, that “sustainability” is a word that means anything, and that America is inherently bad and Marxism (in all its clever guises) is inherently good.

          They believe this crap. And not only that, their brains have been scrambled (not just fed bad information, but scrambled) by thinking processes such as “diversity” and “tolerance.” These are the kinds of slogans zombies regurgitate, but not thoughtful people.

          Adding to all this is the corruption of science by this nonsense. And not that science is necessary for a good society. But it is useful. And like everything else the Left has touched with its totalitarian political narrative, it has made it worse. There is no facet of our society that hasn’t been made worse by the overarching narrative of the Left.

          For now, it’s all smiles. But the smiles are superficial. Let me hold up a sign on a park bench that says “Prepare, for the end is near.” We are getting to that point. We will in our lifetimes see many cities in Europe aflame. We may likely see the same type of thing in the United States. For every one “sensitive” human being that the narrative of the Left produces, it creates at least one or two angry, alienated people. And they will erupt…and probably will be made to erupt by the Left making Occupy Wall Street and the WTO riots in Seattle of a few years back look like a bunch of Boy Scouts.

          The Left has produced a rotten man.

          • M Farrell says:

            “And your post spurred me to think in broader terms in regards to “everything is a narrative.” Our religion, for instance, could be called a narrative written over all that is. We have a “narrative” of living as a husband, father, boss, or friend. That is, we all play different roles, and there’s nothing inherently wrong about that”

            Brad– I had not meant to imply that narratives in and of themselves/per se are somehow faulty– Narratives based on truth (the importance of marriage and fatherhood) are desirable guideposts that teach us how to live– It would be difficult to live or communicate rationally without them– It is the foundation-less, anchor-less, narrative for the sake of narrative/”everything is narrative” with no underlying truth that is dangerous — These are proxies for lying– They masquerade claiming the same moral equivalence as moral verities– When you pull back the curtain, there is nothing there; they are nonsense — It is narrative as verbal smokescreen– It’s the old technique of “if you can’t impress them with brilliance (the real thing), baffle (bury/overwhelm) them with BS– It’ the same as bad money driving out good– All narratives are not equal– By not challenging the false, baseless ones, those based on truth are automatically devalued– It allows nonsense to parade as truth on a par with truth (as in the numerous examples of people’s destructive beliefs you listed in you post)–It also impedes our ability to communicate with or understand each other if nonsense and truth are relatively all the same– everything reduced to unanchored “narrative”– Better to just call it what it really is, “unvarnished lying”– Otherwise, as you have stated, vast numbers of people become invested, heart and soul, in these false narratives; and I agree at some point it will erupt and end badly– It cannot end otherwise when we have destroyed the function of language–

            A side thought I had was –think about 4 individuals who speak 4 different languages (English, French, Hebrew, Russian)– Even given different alphabets, customs, and cultures, reasonably accurate translations can be made so that the four can understand each other if what is being said is true and not nonsense narrative– There can be concrete, valuable communication– If what is being said is a lie, or obscuring nonsense, even if we speak the same language, we have no more than spoken past each other , failing to communicate–

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              It is the foundation-less, anchor-less, narrative for the sake of narrative/”everything is narrative” with no underlying truth that is dangerous

              Agreed. And perhaps it would do to drop the fancy language of the Left and refer to them as ideas or beliefs. Ideas or beliefs (whether you call them narratives or something else) are inherent not only to human nature, but the nature of being in this world. As much as we might struggle with the exact teleology (point of it all), we can agree there is some point to existence — sort of the macro “narrative,” if you will.

              And inside this existence there is plenty of room for our micro narratives which are not necessarily delusional but are roles we play. And, like you, I think the danger comes when all underlying truth is taken away. What then fills that gap? Well, various ungrounded beliefs, such as that there is no human nature, people are basically good until twisted by competition and capitalism, the human race is a plague on the planet, and various other beliefs or narratives. Many are, of course, contradictory (such as the idea that people are basically good and that humanity is a plague).

              These ambiguities and contradictions don’t stand out as much, if only because “feelings,” not standards, are the guiding influence.

              It is narrative as verbal smokescreen– It’s the old technique of “if you can’t impress them with brilliance (the real thing), baffle (bury/overwhelm) them with BS

              I do agree with that, with the caveat of what I believe is the inherent two-tier system of the Left. There are the hardcore Bill Ayers and Obama types at the top who certainly use their “narratives” as a verbal smokescreen (“fundamentally transform” means socialism and other noxious Marxist things). These verbal smokescreens (great coinage) is believed by the second tier of “useful idiots” or “low information voters.” They really do believe that they are “saving the planet” when they “reduce their carbon footprint” and have little or no idea that they are being played by those who hate private enterprise and desire government control of all industry.

              These same “useful idiots” think “diversity” is about loving your neighbor, not understanding it springs forth from the Marxist ideology at the top which is hostile to all native populations (considered “imperialists” and “oppressors”) — which they desire to water down and overcome with third-world immigrants who are deemed “victims” in the Marxist view of things. But your typical useful idiot will think he is the height of compassion when he learns a few words of Spanish.

              • M Farrell says:

                “But your typical useful idiot will think he is the height of compassion when he learns a few words of Spanish”

                Ha!! Too true– as I said, better to call it what it is, unvarnished lying–

  7. SkepticalCynic SkepticalCynic says:

    Mr. Hall, you have done a super job of describing the problem. Now, if you can, explain why the average American voter is willing to tolerate and forgive the lies of the rich and famous. I am not the average American when it comes to lying, I am very slow to forget. I have a daughter that I don’t like to admit is my favorite one. She has recently lied to me with a completely poker face. To the best of my knowledge, I have never caught her in a lie to me before (I have no doubt she has but did not have the proof.) She has lost mega “attaboys” over it in my esteem for her. I will always, from now on, have a doubt about her statements to me. Although, her fall from grace is severe, she is nowhere near my disrespect and scorn for that POS Obama. In my mind he couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it.

  8. Jerry Richardson says:


    Mr. Hall, you have done a super job of describing the problem. Now, if you can, explain why the average American voter is willing to tolerate and forgive the lies of the rich and famous.

    Excellent question! I await someone, not just Mr. Hall explaining that. Surely among all us commentators someone can come-up with at least a theory. I’m scratching my head; so far only a few loose hairs.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I certainly will give it a shot, Jerry.

      Now, if you can, explain why the average American voter is willing to tolerate and forgive the lies of the rich and famous.

      Which lies? People tend to accept lies if they are done in the service of “our cause.” Most homosexuals probably knew, for instance, that Obama was lying about his respect for traditional marriage. And if anyone didn’t know he was lying, they’re a fool. That’s harsh, but it’s the truth. Or perhaps we can take a gentler approach and just call them “low information voters.”

      I think that article I linked to above was an honest appraisal by a Leftist (Loraine O’Connell). In essence, there are more important considerations to voters than lying itself…particularly women voters.

      This reminds me once again about something Dennis Prager has spoken of, particularly in reference to why God is referred to as “he.” And one of the reasons is that men tend to be the law givers. A man will, by and large, operate according to an ethic (it may be a bad one, but he’ll operate according to it). He, more than women (who tend to go by “feelings”), has an ingrained sense of right and wrong.

      Granted, this ingrained sense can be corrupted, incomplete, or outright bad. But if parents, church, and community have done their job, he will have inherited from his culture a particular set of ethics. And a man (for better or for worse) will die for an idea while women, by and large, are more than ready to move the target. Hard and fast rules aren’t as important to them in the abstract (that is, regarding anything that isn’t immediately effecting them personally).

      Give the Paulbots and Libertarians their due. They are operating out of the kind of abstract principle that any society needs if it is not to be a wimp, wet noodle of inevitably cloudy and bad ideas. It just so happens many of their ideas and ethics are incomplete or deluded. But you can see from the male mindset (and most libertarians I’ve encountered are men), we are the rule-makers. We are the ones who draw a line in the sand and say “No further.” We construct the abstract ideas that we declare are important to live by.

      Women don’t tend to do that (for better or for worse). They tend to be more conciliatory, avoiding confrontation and thus acting as a political mass as a one-way ratchet to bigger and bigger government.

      This is one very big reason it is important for proponents of Big Government to feminize men, demonize maleness, and hold up the female traits as the standard for men. Now, lest you think this is my personal “war on women,” it is not. We need both kinds. When either one or the other sex predominates to the exclusion of the other, it’s bad news for society and for the men and women involved.

      Right now the balance is tipped toward “conciliation.” This is probably the biggest reason that Republicans in Congress are such wet noodles. Oh, it’s not that they’ve necessarily been emasculated, although many have. But they see the numbers. They have even more of an inside look at the electorate than we do, so we shouldn’t be surprise if they cynically cater to this electorate. And this electorate apparently doesn’t want any lines drawn in the sand. They will, therefore, “manage” the welfare state better instead of drawing a line in the sand and getting rid of much or some of these corrupt endeavors.

      So people accept lies because the lies are immaterial to the other things they care about: increasing the “free stuff,” for instance. I would certainly accept a lie from a conservative who was spouting all this “religion of peace” baloney but who actually had plans to confront Islam in meaningful ways.

      And regarding the differences between the sexes, I think integrity (being truthful) is a much stronger trait amongst men regarding things not immediately in one’s personal sphere. Women, of course, are very concerned if their husband or boss is lying. But I seriously doubt they care as much regarding more abstract forms of lying.

      And this has seriously eroded the integrity of our country. We need good, strong men who will, when necessary, draw a line in the sand instead of forever facilitating bad ideas simply in the name of avoiding conflict. What are men doing now? Obsessing either over legalizing drugs or baloney such as global warming…when they can find the time away from sitting around in their underwear playing video games.

      Additional: If the above analysis is more or less correct, you can appreciate the seriousness of Cultural Marxism (“diversity,” multiculturalism, non-judgmental “tolerance”) entering and often becoming the guiding ethic in Christian churches. This is a soft and stealthy emasculation of the male. He’s indoctrinated away from any sense of refined justice (let alone any idea of drawing a line in the sand).

      That’s not to say that fire-and-brimstone of the typical kind is needed. And I’m not talking about the exclusion of turning the other cheek and such principles as loving your neighbor. But hidden in all this “tolerance” and “diversity” stuff is the virus of not being able to make a stand when you need to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *