Liberal Calls Jeff Sessions a ‘Moral Monster’

American’s are woefully ignorant about a lot of things. Religion, history, science, and the Constitution are the biggest areas of ignorance. Here’s an example from the Progressive Secular Humanist site that is hosted by

“Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for attorney general, claims the separation of church and state is ‘unconstitutional.’

“Sessions, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general of the United States, is a moral monster with a terrible record on race, women, and the LGBT community.

“However, perhaps most alarming, Sessions is a radical Christian extremist who rejects the separation of church and state.”

Trending: Evidence of the Silicon Valley Cult

I’ll discuss the separation of church and state charge in a future article. It’s the ‘moral monster’ charge that grates on me because it is a prime indicator of someone whose mind has been twisted possibly beyond repair. Michael Stone is an atheist and may be a homosexual. Being an atheist means there is no such thing as “moral monsters.”

Not only is this guy ignorant, he’s pathologically dangerous. If you believe that killing unborn babies is morally wrong, you are “anti-women.” If you oppose the LGBT “community,” you are a ‘moral monster.’

It does not take having Ph.D. in biology to know that same-sex sexuality and transgenderism are scientifically irrational and unborn babies are . . . babies. Forcing people to accept the argument that unborn babies are not human beings and that lopping off body parts in an attempt to change a person’s sex is tyranny. The same type of moral anarchy was used to dehumanize blacks and Jews. It m ade enslaving and murdering them a lot easier.

I’ll let Angelo M. Codevilla explain what I mean with this excerpt from his article “The Rise of Political Correctness”:

political-correctness_codevilla“Consider our ruling class’s very latest demand: Americans must agree that someone with a penis can be a woman, while someone else with a vagina can be a man. Complying with such arbitrariness is beyond human capacity. In Orwell’s 1984, as noted, Big Brother’s agent demanded that Winston acknowledge seeing five fingers while he was holding up four. But that is small stuff next to what the U.S. ruling class is demanding of a free people. Because courts and agencies just impose their diktats, without bothering to try to persuade, millions of precisely the kind of citizens who prize stability have become willing to take a wrecking ball to what little remains of the American republic, not caring so much what happens next.”

Without the stability of unchallenged foundational principles that can never be found in an atheist matter-only cosmos, many people can be led to believe and accept almost anything no matter how irrational or contrary to nature they may be. Here’s an example that should make your hair curl (if you still have any) or straighten, whatever your present condition.

Kay Haugaard has taught creative writing since 1970. As with most of her classes, students read and discuss Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery.” Jackson’s lottery isn’t about winning millions of dollars by picking the right Lotto numbers; it’s about human sacrifice that a small town accepts and takes part in with no questions asked. Of course, the premise is absurd. Or is it given today’s forced consensus that four fingers are really five?

As the years of teaching this story have passed, Haugaard began to see a change in the moral perceptions of her students. Their views on right and wrong had been dulled by the rhetoric of moral arbitrariness, “the danger of just ‘going along’ with something habitually, without examining its rationale and value.”1 Haugaard’s closing comments are chilling:

“No one in the whole class of more than twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand against human sacrifice.

“I wound up the discussion. ‘Frankly, I feel it’s clear that the author was pointing out the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices.’ I was shaken, and I thought that the author, whose story had shocked so many, would have been shaken as well.

“The class finally ended. It was a warm night when I walked to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.”2

We’ve become a nation of moral bystanders. Deep down we know certain behaviors are wrong, but we’ve been cajoled into believing that nothing can be said in objection to the new morally arbitrary climate. If we do react, we are labeled “intolerant” and “insensitive” to different “lifestyle choices.”

Reposted With Permission From
  1. Kay Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” Unriddling Our Times: Reflections on the Gathering Cultural Crisis, ed. Os Guinness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 138. Also see Greg A. King, “Though the Heavens Fall.” []
  2. Haugaard, “The Lottery Revisited,” 141. []

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend