For decades liberals have told conservatives that when it comes to laws protecting innocent human life, defining marriage, or regulating gambling or pornography to protect families from harm — “you can’t legislate morality.”
But tonight, in response to a national financial meltdown, the same liberals who argue that law can’t influence moral behavior, seem to believe all our financial problems can be solved by more laws regulating moral behavior.
Particularly amusing was Rep. Barney Frank — a prime promoter of the “you can’t legislate morality” crowd who was all over television tonight decrying the immorality of Wall Street and promising new laws to legislate morality in the financial industries.
This is the same Barney Frank who, while a Congressman, had a gay lover running a male prostitution ring from his home. Now it turns out that another former gay lover of the Congressman — who Frank described as his “spouse” — was a top executive at Fannie May while Rep. Frank was defending and receiving lots of campaign cash from Fannie May.
All law provides a dividing line between right and wrong conduct. And of course law itself cannot prevent wrong behavior, or else we would have no theft or murder. Debates over the wisdom of legislation on issues from abortion to civil rights to financial fraud are legitimate and welcome, especially as we balance our commitment to individual liberty against the regulatory power of government.
The question on any of these issues is not whether we can legislate morality. The question is: “what moral rules are best for governing society?” With this latest attempt by liberals to legislate morality, perhaps we can have a more honest debate over other issues that liberals try to dismiss as “off limits.”
And let’s hope the moral zealots of the left, in their desire to punish Wall Street wrongdoers for this latest crisis, don’t produce even more rules that stifle economic freedom in a way that is truly destructive to our nation’s future prosperity.
You know, my dad was an old guy. He fought in a war, went through the Depression, raised a successful family, taught me faith, and was married to my mom for almost 60 years. Sometimes I listened to him and sometimes I didn’t. It’s those times that when I didn’t listen that hurt me the most. It’s just plain stupidity to ignore someone who loves you telling you that you should or shouldn’t do something.
America, we have to get this right. We have to stop believing the lies of the slick and the Powerpoint crowd.
Basic principles, no matter if they are displayed on a blackboard or a laptop don’t change. There is a God in heaven who expects us and the people that lead us to live in integrity no matter the cost. If we do this God will always give a good outcome. It’s the principle of reaping what you sow.
At this time in our history, I want a person leading this country who’s been there, who’s seen the agony of war, who’s borne the difficulties of prison, who’s experienced the rough and tumble of Washington.
I think McCain had Obama for lunch tonight and what you saw was the difference between the misuse of intelligence usually called foolishness and the correct application of intelligence usually called wisdom. There’s only one way to get wisdom and that is to live and learn.
While Obama is a good package, that’s all he is. He projects naivete and inexperience. He’s willing to say what people want to hear and that is plain and simple, a demonstration of his immaturity.
If we have learned anything from this financial crisis it’s this: It’s time to get back to good old fashioned values of living within our means as individuals, as families and as a nation.
Obama’s wants to make the government a savior for us all when it was never intended for that. There is only one Savior and Uncle Sam he ain’t.
Obama just presents too much of a risk to this country. I say we send him back to school for a while.
I would like to echo Mr. Schembri.
A leader tells the people not what they want to hear, but what they wish they had heard. Also Leaders, of their own volition and internal moral fortitude, take decisive action even in the face of great adversity. I see neither of these necessary qualities in Sen. Obama. What I do see is an intelligent man with a large vocabulary and a growing body of experience as he is thrust head first in the “big leagues”. But the good Senator is still in process and coming into his own politically. Most of his speeches (sophistry and empty rhetoric) smack of motivational collegiate lectures. Indeed, during the first debate he had fairly good answers that seemingly had enough content to teach a class on, say, international affairs. Yet McCain gave specific historic details, names for each particular situation and personal experience with each issue discussed which usually included a short story about a trip to the country in question. It is this minutia of content, the detailed nuance of particulars which gives a Leader the details needed to make mega-decisions that impact a nation. Sen. Obama may be a nice, sincere man and a highly intelligent, successful man. But the great deception here is the facade of his readiness for such a position as President.