Contact FreedomWorks

111 K Street NE
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20002

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
WATCH NOWTrump's SCOTUS List, Football Is Back, & Laundry Problems | Pardon the DisruptionWatch Here


Virtue! – Washington Post Condones Deceit


All sober enquiries (sic) after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this.

If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?

“Thoughts on Government:  Applicable to the Present State of the American Colonies; In a Letter from a Gentleman to his Friend” - John Adams 1776

Virtue! – Washington Post Condones Deceit

The Washington Post admits the President and other proponents deceived Americans by persistently stating, “You can keep your insurance.”  The editorial board writes

PRESIDENT OBAMA famously claimed that Americans who liked their insurance plans would be able to keep them under health-care reform. Well, that’s not completely true, nor is it the only example of the Obama administration failing to prepare the public for the Affordable Care Act’s phase-in.

Outrageously, the Post argues that America does not need a virtuous government.  America does not need an honest and forthright debate by politicians among themselves and/or the public.  No?  The Post cheerleaders forcefully argue the law is fair and good, and young and healthy Americans should support it.

Yet, having lots of healthy people paying into the new system on its terms will not only limit their financial risk, but also their participation will allow others who have been priced out of the health-insurance market — those with serious preexisting conditions, for example — to obtain good coverage. They deserve compassion, too.   So, compassion justifies governing by deceit.

The Post appallingly concludes:

None of this is an outrage. It’s the predictable result of a defensible policy choice embedded in the reform.

Government must have the moral authority and the respect of its citizens in order to prosper under the Rule of Law.  The intent of the Constitution must be followed.  The laws must be openly debated and duly promulgated.  However, the opposite occurred. 

As Nancy Pelosi infamously exposed, “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”  Instead of an open debate and serious contemplation, Pelosi and Reid rammed a law through, therefore giving almost total rule-making authority to the bureaucracy.  Then, Secretary Sebelius directed the bureaucracy to manipulate the rules depriving hundreds of thousands of their insurance, while President Obama continued to say, “You can keep your insurance.”  This is outrageous

Laws made by bureaucrats and deceit has no place in our Constitutional system.  Equally outrageous, is the editorial.  Society is dangerously threatened when a free press – a theoretically unbiased observers and opinion-makers – has no concern about virtue.  The Post's editorial equals Pelosi's ignorance and disrespect for our Constitution.

Read more: 

Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

A Predictable and Stable Legal Order
A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.



Ex-Mil-Spec's picture
Maximum Sebastian

......and Big Newspaper wonders why it's dying.......

Edwin Loftus

(1) One cannot express in words how right Ted Abram was to raise this issue or how important that issue is.
(2) In the 19th Century a sociopathic trend evolved as an antithesis of true Liberalism that said, in essence; "All past knowledge is based on fiction, is corrupt and should be totally discarded leaving the slate clean for modern mankind to re-write the nature of reality."
(2a) In the Arts the "Realists" seriously proposed that the people should arise and storm the museums destroying all of the relics of the past so they could no longer influence us. (2b) In Philosophy past wisdom was viewed as a 'prison' that bound the mind in old fallacies and fantasies. It must all be forgotten and the memory wiped from our consciousness and in it place we should not ask what is wise or true but what is next in the efforts that will propel our progress for "truth" lies not in the nature of things, but in the effects they have and whether that effect promotes progress or not. Philosophy/Theology were the past to be buried and in their place was to be raised Sociology which measures the effect things have on attitudes and behaviors. (2c) While Sociology became the replacement for determining what should be done, Probability based on mathematical modeling replaced the roles of Philosophy/Theology in determining what is true. Science, a system for determining what could be reliably stated as true was too cumbersome and limited to be applied to the complexity of existence. "Do away with it. Do not be bound by it." So long as a proposition is "probably true" that is enough to justify acting as though it is known to be true and so long as the action taken produces an effect that is desirable as progress on an issue then thought and knowledge is complete. (3) These ideas were elements (not all of the elements, but key elements) in what became the Progressive Movement, the idea that the prime purpose of government is the intentional promotion of progress in a society. Evaluating which effects promote progress requires evaluators with the power to gather information and direct responses, the Central Authority with Totalitarian Power. (4) The leaders who decide what is progressive and what is not must be free to make things happen and overcome any opposition. It cannot be hobbled by disagreement. So though most Progressive governments have had a Leadership. At the head of that Leadership has always stood a Great Leader, some more active and some less so in controlling the actions of the Leadership. (4a) Because the power of kings is in their hands; "power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure", [King James on The Divine Right of Kings] they must be seen as strong, so those they rule will have confidence that they can rule but they must also have Christ-like qualities of wisdom, compassion and benevolence, so the people they rule will not fear their rule. (4b) Many Progressive governments also mimic parts of the American System of government, the only large-scale alternative plan to authoritarian-styles of government, by inserting divisions of government and means for the Leadership to block or even remove the Great Leader. But in doing so they provide another impetus for casting the Great Leader as Christ-like, so that he can present himself as the more perfect guardian, "defending the people from corruption in the Leadership". (5) And so at its very heart the Progressive Movement is amoral, atheist, anti-science, anti-history and most disturbing of all ... it is anti-human. Humans are individuals each with their own individual view upon reality and each with their own individual ideas about what is necessary and important for their own progress. Individuals cannot be managed, they vary too much in too many ways. Progressivism must first reduce individual human beings to gross categories, generalizing their individual natures to the most common denominators. These general categories of humankind are the things Progressive planners can manage, using Sociology and Probability and the vision of the few in the Leadership and the final decisions of the Great Leader as their guides. To the Progressives, morality is a "regressive" idea without foundation in their world view.