The War on Truth

(Photo courtesy of Stix Blog Backup)

—–

All week, we’ve been covering the folks who are covering the RNC convention: the dog-whistles, the projection, and the insistence that every single utterance of any Republican should now be termed “racist”, …all of it.

However, I still don’t believe most folks can fully appreciate the extent to which the Leftist press is pushing this. Quite simply, they are making up out of whole cloth whatever pops into their feverish, bourbon-addled brains (…Chris Matthews, I’m talking to you).

Two articles hit on this today. One was from Jonah Goldberg at National Review and it’s easily worth a read. As good as it was, though, I think that this one from Michael Graham is better, as it more accurately encapsulates all of the lying (and sheer loonyness) emanating from the state sanitarium liberal press. 

They’re flipping-out more than Clark Griswold at the end of ‘Christmas Vacation’, ….which means we are probably doing something right.

–JTR

—–

Nothing scares Obama like truth

-By Michael Graham

“Dems need to hammer Ryan fast and prove clearly that he is a liar because he is a very skilled pol.”

— Howard Fineman  [Journalist (?) @ The Huffington Post]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of liars: Liars, damned liars . . . and screaming, foamy-mouthed MSNBC hosts watching Paul Ryan speak.

We have now moved into what academics might call the “post-factual” portion of the Obama campaign. For example: Tuesday night Ann Romney gives a warm, charmingly earnest speech. Obama flak Robert Gibbs calls it an “angry” night “full of insults.” What “insults?” He doesn’t say. He just says “Republicans are angry!”

Why? Because he needs them to be.

The RNC features black Republicans like Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Artur Davis and Mia Love. CNN and MSNBC fill their panels with nuts like Toure and the Rev. Al Sharpton decrying the “racism” in Tampa. Their proof? They don’t need “proof.” For Obama to win, they need Republicans to be “racist” — so the pundits say they are.

Republican Mitch McConnell quips “Obama hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He’s been working to earn a spot on the PGA tour.” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell knows what’s up: “He’s aligning . . . the lifestyle of Tiger Woods to Obama!”

And in perhaps the most blatant example, DNC spokesflak Debbie Wasserman Schultz used a Los Angeles Times article to claim that Mitt Romney is responsible for the abortion plank of the GOP platform. CNN’s Anderson Cooper confronted her with the fact that the Times article she quoted said the exact opposite — that Romney did not support the plank as written.

Wasserman Schultz’s answer? “Anderson, it doesn’t matter.”

Wow.

—–

Liberal “news” man Howard Fineman did us a favor Wednesday, laying out the Democrats’ strategy:

“Prove clearly” that Paul Ryan — and Mitt Romney and anyone else who can do math — is “lying” . . . whether they are or not.”

Why? Because Obama supporters can’t handle the truth. The facts about the Obama record are so awful, so indefensible that the very idea of “facts” must be destroyed.

Here’s a story Ryan told in his speech about a promise Obama made at a Janesville, Wis., auto plant:

“Candidate Obama said, ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another 100 years.’ That’s what he said in 2008.

Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year.”

It’s an effective metaphor for the many promises Obama has made about the economy that didn’t come true. And that was the problem. It’s too effective. And so the “Fineman Effect” kicked in: Ryan was declared a liar.

“That plant was already closed in 2008,” screamed Chris Matthews, who nearly had to be placed in Hannibal Lecter restraints for his own protection. Thursday morning, Obama lackeys in the “politi-fact” business jumped in, claiming Ryan’s statement as false.

…One problem: Ryan was right. Local media at the time reported the factory still making cars in 2009, and even GM, the plant’s owner, has posted on the Web: “Janesville was placed on standby capacity in May 2009.”

After their failure in convincing Americans of a “GOP War On Women,” Democrats have declared their own war: A war on truth itself.

Paul Ryan, MSNBC, and your own lyin’ eyes (and ears)

Last night I tried something new (for me, at least).

(A) I watched the Republican Convention speeches, and at the same time…

(B) I kept Twitter open, and….

(C) I had MSNBC on, in the background.

Now, I’m admittedly a newbie to Twitter, but that wasn’t my issue. It was the addition of MSNBC that made it…otherworldly. It was flat-out bizarre.

I’m watching the speeches, right? So I obviously could see for myself what was happening. On Twitter, I read in real-time quips and others’ impressions of the event; so far, so good. Yet all the while I had the Ring-wraiths on MSNBC insisting that I most definitely had NOT heard what I thought I’d just heard.

Like I said: bizarre.

And more than a little sad.

—–

If you didn’t stay up late last night, you missed one of the all-time best nights of political speeches you will ever see: Mike Huckabee (I know he’s decent, but he was surprisingly good last night), Condi Rice (polished; uplifting; excellent), Gov. Susana Martinez (she is a wonderfully natural speaker) and finally Paul Ryan. Oration is not one of Ryan’s top skill sets, but you’d never have known it last night.

From Guy Benson at Townhall.com:

Ryan also made a play for young voters, which included a gem of a line:

“College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.  Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now.  And I hope you understand this too, if you’re feeling left out or passed by: You have not failed, your leaders have failed you. None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us. Listen to the way we’re spoken to already, as if everyone is stuck in some class or station in life, victims of circumstances beyond our control, with government there to help us cope with our fate.  It’s the exact opposite of everything I learned growing up in Wisconsin, or at college in Ohio.  When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life.  I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. 

That’s what we do in this country.  That’s the American Dream.  That’s freedom, and I’ll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners.”

Ryan described the generational differences between himself and Mitt Romney, including this cheeky jab:

We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies.  I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.

If you didn’t see the speeches, you really need to (at the least) read all of Guy Benson’s write-up. If you can take the time to watch some of the speeches, too, you won’t regret it. 

—–

But.

But….

Remember how I told you I had the MSNBC feed going, too? It was hair-on-fire time, and everyone seemed to need a drink. It’s also possible they’d already drained the bar.

Bitter? Petty? Sure, no question. Manic? Yes, yes. But I think what I saw, more than anything, was rage. Petulance. Fury. It was a bit like watching several fully grown ‘Veruca Salts‘, none of whom can believe that they aren’t being given their Oompa-Loompas right now.

What else can you call this pithy review of Ryan’s exceptional speech from Chris “Make It A Double” Matthews:

Nasty? Negative? Ryan’s speech? Are you kidding me? I wanted to drive to the gym (heck, I could have RAN to the gym), I was so pumped-up afterward. It’s ridiculous mischaracterizations of observable fact such as this which are the reason people poke such fun of MSNBC. They bring it on themselves.

Matthews wasn’t done yet, either. Here’s the transcript, from NewsBusters.com:

MATTHEWS: “…..I think that you can always – the thing I always look for in these speeches is, who’s the person on the podium up there – at the lectern, talking to? And I don’t want to get too sectarian about this, but it’s clear that Paul Ryan was talking to people who think about rights as something that were – produced by Thomas Jefferson, ignoring the people for whom the rights only came in the 1960s; no reference to the fact that a good portion of the country was denied those rights, especially the important right to vote, up until 1965. And it was given to them through a lot of effort and fighting between the two parties, and it became a bipartisan effort led by Lyndon Johnson, and, of course, Everett Dirksen of Illinois. But, for some reason, they never mentioned those things, because they’re talking to people – let’s be honest about this – who didn’t feel – the benefit, at all, from those civil rights, and I think that’s very important to point out.”

Rights that were “produced by Thomas Jefferson“? Huh? You mean, the guy that iterated that all of us had inalienable rights? You know, from God? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

As a critic, Matthews is an exemplary idiot.

‘Course, to some degree, I kinda sympathize with the MSNBC’ers: they’re in a tough spot. They’ve been selling the “GOP-is-racist” meme for sooooo long, it is indelibly associated with them. It’s their brand. So as people actually SEE these nice, friendly, smart, and sincere folks from the right side of the aisle, some will start to wonder, “Hey, maybe the Conservatives actually aren’t dog-whistle-tweeting, racist Satan spawn?”. And as soon as THAT happens, the remaining 4 dozen MSNBC viewers will finally, mercifully change their channel.

Forever.

However, in the meantime, if you’d like some free Schadenfreude , I suggest you tune into MSNBC soon.

It’s the best comedy programming on right now.

—–

UPDATE —  If you’re really pressed for time today, have no fear: the Free Beacon has Ryan’s six best lines of the night for you. We’re full-service, baby!

Thanks for proving my point, Lefties

Saw this over at The Right Sphere this morning, and it echoed what I wrote about yesterday almost exactly. It also proved my point to a ‘T’. 

So, in the admittedly selfish interest of saying “I told ya’ so”, here it is.

-JTR

—-

The Republican National Convention finally went into full swing last night.  Mia Love, Ted Cruz, Artur Davis,  and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all gave rousing speeches laying out both the case against reelecting President Obama and the case for electing Mitt Romney. Following them, Ann Romney gave us a much needed personal glimpse into who Mitt Romney is and then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered the keynote address.

As one would expect, these speeches were met with much consternation from the Left. Even more predictable were the usual cries from the usual talking heads that the GOP was using ‘racial code words’ and ‘dog whistles.’ Like this one from Donna Brazile:

Donna Brazile  @donnabrazile

Social issues, code words, dog whistle. Is this the red meat the GOP wants to attract women and independent voters?

See, what Leftists like Donna Brazile hope to do is make any discussion on any issue they know they are losing on about race. Bring up food stamps? ‘Code word.’ Wanna talk about welfare? ‘Dog whistle.’ Mitt Romney uses a banner that says ‘Obama Isn’t Working’?…he’s evoking ‘racial stereotypes’. They do this because they know if this election is about a real discussion of issues and President Obama’s record, he’s likely going to lose.

But here’s the problem: the only real ‘racial code words’ and ‘dog whistles’ are actually the terms ‘racial code words’ and ‘dog whistle.’ These words are nothing more than Democrats wanting to have the ability to call someone a racist without actually having to say so. They do this because it allows them to introduce race, infer racism, and plant the idea that someone is a racist without a shred of evidence to support that idea. I say no more.

From now on when they throw those canards out there, ask them why it’s a ‘code word’ or ‘dog whistle.’ Make them say that any discussion of entitlement spending, unemployment, or any other issue is racist and can only be about minorities. Then ask them why they think that’s the case.

Ask them specifically if they think the person talking about that issue is a racist. Make them say it. Make them call Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and everyone else in the GOP a racist.

Trust me, they’re dying to.

via Democrat Dog Whistles | The Right Sphere.

Lap Dog Media

Since we are heading into the RNC conventions this week, you may wish to gird your loins for a raising of the rhetorical stakes over the next few days.

I long ago became inured to the Left and their incessant, mindless charges of “racism” at all who disagree with them. This is who they are; one may as well scream at the rain for being wet.

The odd thing is, that in 99% of the cases their evidence of “racism” is …things only they can hear:

“In politics, a dog whistle is a rhetorical device–an oral expression susceptible to two interpretations, one straightforward and one, metaphorically speaking, at a higher frequency.”

I just did a quick search, and YouTube is loaded to the gills with examples. Actually, I now assume Rachel Maddow, Touré and Chris Matthews each receive some sort of “Racist-Dog-Whistle performance bonus”, based solely upon their usage.

And now, after almost 4 years of their BFF at the country’s helm with absolutely bupkis to show for it other than horrifying debt and record-setting unemployment, they really have no card to play other than this one. Thus, everything is (or can magically become) a racist dog whistle.

James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal pulled all of this into sharp and ironic focus yesterday. This is only part of the essay, so be sure to read it all:

Here’s what Romney said on Friday, as reported by The Atlantic’s Molly Ball: “Now, I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born at Henry Ford Hospital, I was born at Harper Hospital. No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

You can tell this was a dog whistle because different groups of people heard it totally differently. CBS’s Jan Crawford noted on Twitter that there were “two reactions to his birth certificate joke: reporters gasped–and a crowd of thousands laughed and cheered.” The crowd heard the straightforward meaning: It was a joke and an applause line. The watchdogs of the press heard the whistle, and so did other lefties. To judge by this MSNBC clip, and this one, it drove them into a mad and wonderfully entertaining frenzy.

Ball, who decrees, contrary to the human crowd’s reaction, that “as a ‘joke,’ it isn’t very funny,” attempts to translate the dog whistle into man talk:

“…The most troubling part of Romney’s statement is the implication that Obama is somehow to blame for the birthers’ conspiracy theorizing — that there are some people you can look at and tell they were “born and raised” here, and others who make you wonder, for some reason.

This implication of a certain hazy foreignness about Obama isn’t new for Romney . . .”

Ruff stuff!

The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it’s intended for somebody else. The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you’re the dog.

Line of the YEAR, right there.

Keep it in mind, especially if you decide to view the RNC convention on MSNBC this week. You’ll need it.

Kiss Of Death

I tried.

I tried to not look for any articles that had to do with the government inexplicably beating down the private sector, costing our economy jobs and revenue.

I tried.

I failed.

Today I give you an article from the Washington Post’s ‘Health & Science’ section, which is primarily about WHY there are fewer antibiotics being developed today (hint: it’s Capitalism’s fault):

As doctors battled a deadly, drug-resistant superbug at the National Institutes of Health’s Clinical Center last year, they turned to an antibiotic of last resort.

But colistin, as it’s called, is not a fancy new creation of modern biotechnology. It was discovered in a beaker of fermenting bacteria in Japan — in 1949.

That doctors have resorted to such an old, dangerous drug — colistin causes kidney damage — highlights the lack of new antibiotics coming out of the pharmaceutical pipeline even in the face of a global epidemic of hospital-acquired bugs that quickly grow resistant to the toughest drugs.

It’s a case of evolution outrunning capitalism.

Exsqueeze me? Somehow this means that Capitalism failed? You mean, when given the proper incentives and environment for success, entrepreneurs decided to NOT try to find the next miracle drug? Why doesn’t that sound , ohhhh, what’s the word, …..true?

You only have to read a couple more paragraphs before they give you the answer:

“Experts point to three reasons pharmaceutical companies have pulled back from antibiotics despite two decades of screaming alarms from the public health community: There is not much money in it; inventing new antibiotics is technically challenging; and, in light of drug safety concerns, the FDA has made it difficult for companies to get new antibiotics approved.”

Gosh, how much harder, exactly, Washington Post?

Shlaes said that concerns about antibiotic safety — driven by deaths linked to the drug Ketek that came to light in 2006 — have made the FDA reluctant to approve new antibiotics. “They’ve basically made it impossible for companies to develop and market antibiotics in the U.S.,” he said.

Hey, here’s a question: if a government agency makes it “basically impossible” for  me to develop and market something, how exactly is it a failure of Capitalism when I decide to NOT try to develop and market that something??!? Even for the Post, that’s a stretch. This is “1984” logic here:

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes, they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.”

–“1984” by George Orwell

I’m used to the Washington Post “Orwell-izing” the truth; happens every day. No, what concerns me is the result of  the FDA meddling in drug research which saves countless lives. This story yet again highlights our government’s innate ability to screw up (vs. help) any given industry it contacts. It’s as if the Government fancies itself as King Midas and, as in that fairy-tale, its “Golden Touch” is actually the Kiss Of Death.

—–

As a parting thought, ask yourself: will Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan be more likely to increase the span, reach and overall negative effect of the government over the private sector in the next four years?

Take your time; it’s a tough one, I know…..

Trust and Obedience

Last Sunday’s post presented a hypothetical situation involving my reporting on weather to someone who ignored the reports.  It didn’t include my giving a command to dress a certain way–because I was focusing on the issue of trust, not the issue of obedience.

I was asking why, if I have proven myself to be trustworthy, someone would refuse to trust me.  What could be the motivation for ignoring someone who has been truthful and consistent?  The answer which occurs to me is “pride.”  There is in our nature a self-determinism which has been known–especially in the teen years–to fly in the face of all evidence that flight conditions are unsafe and one had better stay on the ground.  This “I know best what’s best for me” attitude is the foundation of American independence.  It’s also the basis for post-modernism’s refusal to accept anything as objectively, absolutely true.

And if there is no Source of authoritative truth, then there is no obligation to either believe or act on it, is there?  A philosopher once said, “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”  And so we hear, “Well, that may be true for you, but it isn’t for me.”   Truth becomes purely pragmatic, and a matter of personal taste or preference or expediency.

So if I offer an insight, a fact, an observation–even if I am proven right time after time–the listener feels no compunction to heed my words or to act on them, if it’s not convenient for him at the time.  Now, notice that we’re still looking at the issue of trust, and why being trustworthy doesn’t mean that one will be trusted.  I can point to endless historic examples of warnings which went unheeded, to the everlasting regret of the hearers.  What of Winston Churchill’s cautions regarding Germany’s rearming after WWI?  Nearer to us, what about the reports that the levee in New Orleans wouldn’t withstand a category 5 hurricane?   We can go back through the centuries and play “if only” all along the way…and never stop for a generation’s rest until we arrive at the tree in the garden where the couple stood staring and salivating…

“If you eat the fruit of this tree, you will die.”  That was the bare statement.  It came from the One who had made them, along with every other creature in that glorious place.  Who else would know better?  And yet…

“You won’t really die…”  was whispered along the bough of the beautiful tree.  And they believed it.  Just like that.  It suited them to believe it.  They wanted a bite.  Why shouldn’t they have it?  Why not, indeed.  And there was born the first sin.  When Ultimate trustworthiness met mistrust…it was a grave mistake.  To be worthy of unquestioning trust means to be worthy of being obeyed.  And so to disobey is worse than a mistake.  It is a sin.

All other authority on earth which we are asked to obey is derived from that First authority.  Parents are vested with power by God Himself, as are rulers and governors of nations or cities.  To the extent of their authority, they are to be obeyed by those under their rule.  Over time, we have learned that there are unjust rulers–and there are evil parents.  But this abuse of power doesn’t negate the fact that such power, given by God, exists.  The abuses, however, have provided a compelling excuse (for this generation particularly) to sluff off all those who would give direction and boundaries to life.  Thus, it becomes convenient to disbelieve in a sovereign God, because if He ISN’T in charge…well, then, no one is.  Or we all are.  

In order to disobey with impunity, what’s offered now is the excuse of mistrust…and herein is the lie.  In the face of all reason, all past experience which points to the trustworthiness of the one in charge, the person under authority trusts his own judgment–which is really his own preference.  He accepts the lie:

“You don’t know what’s best for me.”
“You don’t care about me. You don’t want me to have fun.”
“You just like being the boss.”
“You can’t control what I do…you’re too old to understand what I feel.”
“It can’t hurt me.  It’s not really addictive, you know.”
“That’s a stupid law anyway.”
“Everyone else is doing it.  You’re just being mean.”

Do you hear a chuckle, a sinister snicker coming from the underbrush?  “You won’t really die…”

And all around, proud, self-reliant souls are puffing out their chests and saying, “I can think for myself.”  “I’m not hurting anyone else.”  “This is what’s right for me…you just don’t understand how I feel.”  “Who’ll ever know?  It’s not that big a deal.”

“I am the master of my fate and the captain of my soul.”

And that is how shipwreck happens.  When a sinful and foolish pride masquerades as independent thinking…when mistrust is just a mistake.

2-for-1 special: Bill Whittle and The Piano Guys

Everyone loves a deal, right? And one of the BEST deals is getting twice as much of something as you expected, …right? Heck, we see versions of the 2-for-1 deal everywhere:

• buy 1, get 1 free
• tools that do TWO tasks, rather than just one
• double cheeseburgers
• 2 heads being better than just one
• tandem bicycles
• …and the list goes on…

So, we’re offering a very special 2-for-1 deal today:

1. Something politically informative, with a new Bill Whittle video, and
2. Something musically entertaining, with the Piano Guys.

What can I say? I’m a giver.

—–

—–

—–

The Rule of Law vs. “Calvinball”

Busy day today, so I’m re-blogging a post I saw earlier from yet another of our blogger friends. Many thanks to Dapper Dan over at Principles, Not Men blog for the loan.

And for my money, any time you can combine Hayek, the Federalist Papers and ‘Calvin & Hobbes‘ into one highly cogent post, you’re doing somethin’ right.

Happy Friday, gang.

—JTR

—–

Rule of Law

The term “Rule of Law” is an important term in political dialogue.  Accepting this belief or not will determine where you stand on many, if not most, of the issues.

In The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek describes it thus:

Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge….under the Rule of Law the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action.  Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.

Basically, the decision is between “Rule and Law” and “arbitrary government” where the rules keep changing.  Hayek then uses an analogy of highways.

The difference between the two kinds of rules is the same as that between laying down a Rule of the Road, as in the Highway Code, and ordering people where to go; or better still, between providing signposts and commanding people which road to take.

My own view of the difference is like between the NFL and Calvinball.  If you are not familiar with the comic cartoon ‘Calvin and Hobbes‘, the boy Calvin and his imaginary tiger Hobbes would play a game called Calvinball.  In this game they would randomly shout out “rules” and the other was required to comply.  Naturally, the rules benefitted the one who made them up and hurt the opposition.  It was absolute chaos.  This would represent arbitrary government.  It doesn’t take much effort to see how unjust this is.

Now the NFL is like the Rule of Law.  The players all go in knowing the rules of the game ahead of time and then form their strategies based around those rules.  Both sides play by the same rules and violators are penalized.  At the end, whoever wins, wins.  If the refs are bribed to make bad calls against a certain team, we would all see that justice was being perverted because favoritism is being shown.  However, if the game is played fairly, even if your team loses you can say it was a “good game” and justice was done.

Conversely, tyranny thrives in arbitrary government.  If it doesn’t like some group of people (whether it’s based on class, race, or whatever) it can randomly create laws that penalize or hurt that group of people.  And here is where the analogy of Calvinball breaks down, because the other side cannot make laws too.

They are left to the mercy of the coercive powers of the government.

Likewise, government can make laws that will benefit some at the expense of others.  It may do this through bailouts because a corporation is “too big to fail” or they may do this in order to gain votes from a certain group of people, such as gaining black votes through affirmative action laws.  Whatever the reason, it’s obvious that they are playing “Calvinball” and justice is being perverted.

They are resolutely helping one group at the expense of the other.

The Founders saw this problem.  James Madison in Federalist 62 said:

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

The law should be equally applied to everyone, even members of government.  That is why it is so unjust for Congress to create a massive health care bill, force it down the throats of the American people, and then exempt themselves from it.

To be sure, there are such things as immoral laws.  But those laws are the ones that treat some differently than others.  If the law was truly equally applied to ALL members of society, even the government bureaucrats, those immoral laws would largely, if not completely, disappear.

Conclusion:

It doesn’t take much effort to see how far down the Calvinball-road America has already come.  Just think how often we hear, “Let’s just get to the next election.  If we can survive that long, maybe we can get the right people in and they can get such-and-such a law passed or such-and-such a law repealed.”

When we’re saying things like that, we’re already way too far down the Road to Serfdom.