Making America Moral Again

Posted on May 13, 2019 by Robert Ringer


I’m so happy that Jester Joe told us we have to make America moral again.  I agree.  And the first step toward that end is to root out corrupt, lying old geezers like Biden himself.

Sure, Jester Joe is good for a few laughs now and then (e.g., joking about the Indian accents at Dunkin’ Donuts, telling a guy in a wheelchair to stand up, and proclaiming Barack Obama to be “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”).  But when push comes to shove, you can be sure Jester Joe will always adhere to the Dirty Dems’ weapons of choice — Lie, Steal, Cheat, and Deceive.

So, what, exactly, does Jester Joe mean when he says he wants to make American moral again?

  • Does “make America moral again” mean lying about being a Native American in order to get preferred treatment when applying for a teaching position at a prestigious university?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean it’s okay for a United States senator to claim he’s a Vietnam veteran even though he’s never set foot in Vietnam?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean having an illicit sexual relationship with the married mayor of San Francisco?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean trying to shut down a fast-food restaurant because you disagree with the owner’s religious beliefs?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean destroying a squeaky-clean Supreme Court nominee and his family in an effort to thwart his confirmation?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean keeping a just-born infant “comfortable” until his mother decides whether or not to kill him?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean refusing to condemn anti-Semitic rhetoric in the United States Congress?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean spying on an opposing political campaign in an effort to rig an election?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean urging people to harass members of the president’s cabinet and drive them out of public places?
  • Does “make America moral again” mean refusing to accept election results or the results of a two-year investigation into “Russian collusion?”

Make America moral again, indeed.  Based on my moral standards, everything on this abbreviated list is immoral. 

Now, let’s get real.  Arguably, the most important ingredient in morality is freedom.  No human being can claim the moral high ground so long as he deprives, or attempts to deprive, another person of his freedom.

It’s not surprising that virtually everything the presidential clowndidates in the Democratic field say they intend to do if they become president is anti-freedom, starting with their free-everything promises.  Even before the takeover of the Democratic Party by the Radical Left, Democrats have always favored policies that curtail individual freedom and increase government power.

Thus, it is not hard to understand why liberals, by and large, are the most immoral people on the planet.  You can’t be moral if you’re anti-freedom.  And what makes them especially reprehensible is their hypocritical obsession with positing themselves as the arbiters of morality.  Day in and day out, they lie, steal, cheat, and deceive, yet through it all they insist on lecturing their fellowman on the importance of morality — their idea of morality, that is.

Which brings me to the Absolute Moralist, a creature I first wrote about in Looking Out for #1.  As I explained at the time, the lifetime mission of the Absolute Moralist is to badger and intimidate you into doing the “right thing” — as defined by him.

The Absolute Moralist is also a true believer, a person who is 100 percent convinced that his beliefs are right — especially morally right — and is thus unconditionally committed to the talking points of whatever crusade or crusades he happens to be promoting at any given time.

Keep in mind that the Absolute Moralist not only believes he is morally superior to you, he also believes that you, by contrast, are immoral.  Taking it to the next logical step, if you are immoral, the world would be better off without you.  Which gives the Absolute Moralist a moral justification for killing you.  After all, why should an immoral person be allowed to live?

Do I really believe members of the Radical Left would actually kill those with opposing views if they thought they could get away with it?  Yes, I do.  Laugh at your own peril.

For those compassionate souls who might be tempted to give friendly advice to someone who has lost his way, I can assure you that it’s a mistake to try to help an Absolute Moralist see the hypocrisy in his words and actions.  Absolute Moralitis is a severe mental disorder that almost always includes a condition known as anosognosia — the inability to be aware of one’s own medical issues — and you can’t help someone who does not believe he has a problem.

That being the case, your best bet is to focus on protecting your own sanity — and your life! — by ignoring the moral superiority proclamations of Absolute Moralists.  Just as important, ignore any attempt by them to shame you on moral grounds.  Claims of moral superiority and shaming give Absolute Moralists a convenient way to avoid entering into a factual discussion.

One last point:  Since America is not a human being, it can be neither moral nor immoral.  Which raises the question, when Jester Joe talks about making America moral again, does he mean making every person in the United States moral?  How, exactly, would that work?  Reeducation camps, perhaps?  Kind of a dumb thought, even for Joe.

The quality of right and wrong is a very personal matter.  No other living soul has a God-given right — and I choose those words purposely — to decide what is right and wrong for you.  So long as your concept of right and wrong does not call for committing aggression against anyone else, you have a right to pursue your happiness in any way you so choose.

In the meantime, let’s hope Jester Joe keeps harping on morality.  There’s no question that Radical Leftists, afflicted as they are with Absolute Moralitis, love it.  But beating the morality drum nonstop is a surefire way to turn off independents and center-left Democrats, i.e., the very voters who will decide the 2020 election.

Jester Joe is an idiot, to be sure, but if he observes what happens to Cardinal Comey over the next year or so, he might just be smart enough to figure out that sanctimonious “I’m good, the other guy is bad” sermons have a way of resulting in jail time.

If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, surely his first refuge is sermonizing about morality.

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

20 responses to “Making America Moral Again”

  1. JF1017 says:

    I have difficulty accepting the pronouncements from the pulpit of Joe Biden. This is a guy who was dinged from the Democrat platform for stealing another person's speech without any attribution. A guy whose overtly creepy and very close to pedophilic behavior even has the left talking. Taking lessons in morality from BIden would be like taking lessons in finance from AOC (another example of "morality" – a known tax evader talking about how everyone else should pay their "fair share.")

  2. JurassicRick says:

    Sleepy creepy Joe the Perv is a real goof and is not presidential material. President Trump believes that he will be the Dirty Dem nominee. That's the way it looks now, but remember what happened to Howard Dean…….and Gary Hart…….and Ed Muskie…….shoo-ins at first who crashed and burned and walked away from their political wreckage never to be seen or heard of again. This very well may be Creepy Joe's fate. After all, there is never enough duct tape at Home Depot and Lowe's combined that is strong enough to keep his big yap shut. He suffers from an incurable Foot in Mouth Disease. I feel it is still too early to pronounce Creepy Joe the winning nominee out of 22+ candidates. But then who knows! Talk about morality, how about how moral Creepy was when he was caught plagiarizing! Sounds reminiscient of what Robert Ringer talked about in Looking Out for Number One, the Line Drawing Game. Pile that on with Absolute Morality and you really create a dangerous monster!

  3. Gwcpa1 says:

    The 2020 election will be an interesting one. Never before in our history has such a motley crew of Marxists and left wing crazies declared for the presidency. There isn’t a mainstream candidate in the Democrat Party.

  4. pokertiger says:

    Kamala Harris is more like Pennywise the Clown along with her friends.Period.

  5. Mr Domain says:

    "Making America moral again" = is to root out corrupt, lying old geezers!

  6. Pitch22 says:

    You need to go on an extended speaking tour of all the major college campuses. Your subscribers already understand that which you espouse.

  7. Pitch22 says:

    You need to go on an extended speaking tour of all the major college campuses. Your subscribers already understand that which you espouse.

  8. patg2 says:

    Freedom is the corollary to the right to life and to property lawfully acquired. In order for morality to produce a functional society, there has to be a basic level of agreement on what is moral. Your idea that we should be able to do whatever we want as long as we don't aggress is a very good start. However, now you have to define what it means to aggress. If you harm someone else with your actions, even if it is unintentional, is that aggression? If it is a licentious act, I would say Yes. Licentiousness is the opposite of liberty, because it makes you a slave to your passions.

    In order to have true morality, a universal sense of right and wrong, there needs to be a foundation, whether it is acknowledged or not. Our morality is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. To illustrate what I mean, we believe there should be laws against aggression so that it can legally be stopped. (Unless you are an anarchist, but anarchy is an unachievable utopia.) But Islam, for example, has no problem with stoning a rape victim to death. Not punishable, and you don't stop it. You let it happen, and you participate. If you have religious beliefs which are real and true, you have that foundation for morality. Otherwise, it truly is a case of everyone deciding for himself what is moral. And if we allow that, why is it immoral for a mother to keep her baby comfortable while she decides whether to kill him? Why is your prohibition of aggression moral in the first place? Either there are moral absolutes (we have the God-given right to life, liberty, and property lawfully acquired) or there are not, and if there are not, then you CANNOT conclude that Joe is immoral. It's that simple.

    Now mind you, that does not mean there should be a law against everything that might be judged to be immoral. Although immoral behavior is the cause of excessive laws. As my husband explains it, there are five different ways to deal with an act. 1. make it mandatory 2. encourage it 3. stay neutral about it 4. discourage it, and 5. make it illegal. With this in mind, a person who simply believes in the Judeo-Christian God is not by definition an Absolute Moralist. He will acknowledge that there are certain activities that we should simply discourage and not make illegal. For example, is it immoral to spend lots of money on fancy clothes while your neighbor's child doesn't have enough to eat? Probably. Should we make it illegal? No. And looking at the overall picture never hurts either. When you buy fancy clothes, you employ the people who make the clothes and that means they can feed their hungry children. Some things are inherently immoral, and others are simply immoral because of certain consequences which are not universal. We all need clothes. So buying clothes is not immoral. Where do you draw the line? Let each person draw it for himself.

    • MacyK25 says:

      I think that it is immoral to have children that one can not afford, and more immoral to expect society to subsidize one's raising of those children. We all know how to avoid making babies.

      • patg2 says:

        I think your comment is a good illustration of why we need a common moral standard. What shall people do with children they cannot afford? Kill them? How about placing them for adoption? Yes, it is immoral to expect people to be forced to help you. And yes, people who cannot afford children should refrain from making babies. But do you see the problem here? Your statement hints at the idea that if you cannot afford a child and you accidentally make one, it is moral to kill the child, just so you do it early enough. I'm not saying that is what you SAID, but rather, what you DID say is used as justification for killing an existing child just because you cannot afford to take care of the child, and you cannot yet see the child.

        • MacyK25 says:

          What a moron you are.

          • patg2 says:

            Wow! What a PERSUASIVE argument! NOT! It's an ad hominem attack. When someone does that, I know they don't have a good defense. I won the argument.

          • MacyK25 says:

            I do not need a defense. For whatever reasons, RJR did not publish my response to your attack, which I am sure you received. Who do you think you are? I stand by my assessment: you are a moron. I repeat, you have intruded upon my life, and nothing having to do with me is your business. You have won nothing. You are a loser. As I said to you, crawl bqack in the kennrel and stop yapping.

          • patg2 says:

            This is the first response I have seen from you. How is commenting on someone else's web site an intrusion upon your life? I have made no comment on you personally, only that your arguments are not persuasive, because ad hominem attacks are effectively an admission of lack of valid argument. If you don't like what I say, nobody is making you write to me.

          • MacyK25 says:


          • patg2 says:

            It looks like you have no idea what a liar is. A liar is someone who deliberately says something he knows to be false, and represents it as the truth. For you to make that determination about me means you would have to be able to read my mind. Since you cannot read my mind, your accusation is false and is yet another ad hominem attack. I am obviously getting under your skin. Maybe you need to figure out why you are so sensitive, and deal with it. So I misspoke about it being the first response, and for that I apologize, but I did not knowingly make that statement. I simply forgot that you had responded before.

  9. MacyK25 says:

    I underestimated the RJR machine. They did not publish or pass along TWO of my responses to you. Shameful!