There Is a Difference Between Ethical, Legal, Moral


Just because something is legal and may be part of a moral high ground does not necessarily make it ethical.  This debt ceiling fiasco is the perfect example of changing views, alliances, and political posturing at its worse.

What is legally right?
What is moral?
What is ethical?

Are they the same or is there a difference?

“…Political engagement appears to be part of the Koch culture, from Charles and David Koch on down. Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission list hundreds of Koch employees, the brothers included, who contribute anywhere from $120 to $5,000 annually to the company’s political action committee, as well as make individual contributions directly to candidates.

The brothers have long been players on the national scene. They, their employees and KochPac have given about $9.5 million to congressional and presidential campaigns and other political committees since 1990, more than 80 percent of it to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.

The second-largest privately held company in the United States, Koch Industries also spends millions more lobbying the federal government on such issues as defense appropriations, financial regulatory reform and energy issues.

The company also has bankrolled conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation – as well as the tea party organization Americans for Prosperity and its Americans for Prosperity Foundation, chaired by David Koch….”

The actions of Koch Industries, their PACs, David and Charles Koch are perfectly legal. We now live in a nation where you can do just about anything you want, politically, if you have enough money.  They do it all the time.  So does George Soros.  They play within the letter of the law. Political factions pander for their ready cash to support any number of causes.

It is all perfectly legal.

It reminds me of a quote from Jurassic Park. Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum says the following:  “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

The quote reminds me of the multi-billionaires like the Koch brothers and Soros.  They are so busy funding their Spy vs. Spy nuisance non-profits and PACs that they have destroyed civil discourse in this country.  Their paid flunkies have managed to push the left farther left and the right farther right.  Those of us who refuse to pay their immature and nasty little games are being left behind as hated “moderates” even when we are not.

There is something terribly wrong here.

If the far left, bought and paid for by a Soros donation, attacks someone bought and paid for by a Koch donation all the little Koch flunkies, and those who believe in the cause, go on the attack.  If the far right, bought and paid for by a Koch donation, attacks someone bought and paid for by a Soros donation, all the little Soros flunkies, and those who believe in the cause, go on the attack.

Criticism from any source is NOT allowed.  It cannot be tolerated.  Anyone who criticizes a Soros prostitute must be destroyed.  Anyone who criticizes a Koch prostitute must be destroyed.  It is legal.  There’s nothing immoral about it, but there is NOTHING ethical about it.

Democrats for Sale

“…“The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right,” O’Reilly concluded. He argued that many on the right were doing more to help the President than hurt him with their antics. “The irony is,” he noted, “the people who dislike President Obama the most– on talk radio or cable news, wherever it is– the people that dislike him the most are helping him the most.” He concluded by pleading that conservatives have “got to stop this hateful rhetoric.”…”

The Nation

The Pink Flamingo recently began reading a fascinating blog called Ethics Alarm.  I highly recommend it.  Jack Marshall is something of a contradiction in terms, an attorney who specializes in ethics.  Evidently there are more of them out there than Lindsey, and a few other stalwarts.

Marshall recently wrote the following about Robert E. Lee.

“…No one is good “in theory.” Abstract goodness isn’t goodness at all, but only posturing. Principles are vital as constants to guide us through the chaos of life, but allowing them to send us, our community or our nation tumbling off a cliff or plunging into the sun is not ethical, intelligent, or forgivable….If an individual’s ideals and character lead to pain and death, if loyalty and integrity cause a person to embrace, as Ulysses S. Grant correctly termed Lee’s “cause,”  “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse,”  then that individual isn’t ethical, and certainly is no hero.

That person is a fool….”

What a remarkable commentary for today.

The Hill
The Political


“…Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc….”

Free Dictionary


“…Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Morality has two principal meanings:
In its “descriptive” sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

In its “normative” sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal “moral” person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by “definitive” statements such as “That person is morally responsible” rather than descriptive statements like “Many people believe that person is morally responsible.” These ideas are explored in normative ethics. The normative sense of morality is often challenged by moral nihilism (which rejects the existence of any moral truths) and supported by moral realism (which supports the existence of moral truths)….”

The Free Dictionary


Lawful, permissible, just, etc.

The Free Dictionary

Rush Limbaugh has become the poster child for what is not ethical.

“...Winners do not compromise.  Winners do not compromise with themselves.  The winners who do compromise are winners who still don’t believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers.  And you and I are finished with supporting people who think of themselves as losers, or in the minority, or we don’t have the power, or we don’t control all three branches, or what have you.  I wish Barack Obama would give a speech every day.  I don’t believe the news reports that say Obama’s losing sleep.  I don’t believe that.  I don’t believe his hair’s getting gray.  I think they’re putting flour in it every day to make it look like it’s getting grayer or whatever the makeup trick is.

This man has taken our country to the brink.  The gross domestic product, the growth numbers today, my friends, are unacceptable.  It is a shame and it is an embarrassment.  The ChiCom economy is growing at 94 percent.  We’re being outperformed by a communist country.  There’s no excuse for this.  This should not be our new norm, and there is no way that we ought to be compromising with the architect of the disaster that has befallen our country.  On what basis is Barack Obama viewed as a leader?  On what basis is Barack Obama viewed as even a winner?  He and his party were shellacked in the November elections.  There are 25 or 30 courageous Republican freshmen who held out for this.  Mike, grab audio sound bites 9, 10, and 11.  I want you to hear these.  This is the media, befuddled over these Tea Party freshmen.  …”

One of the worst ethical breeches The Pink Flamingo has seen in a long time is what Sarah Palin did on Thursday, to attack any Republican for thinking on his/her own.  Laura Ingraham, who is someone I’ve not fully agreed with at least 80% of the time, has stood up for what is right, when called to do so.  Ingraham risked losing her primarily tea party audience by standing up for what she believed is right.

“…She proceeded to run through a list of conservatives who have endorsed Boehner’s plan, quipping sarcastically: “I guess we’re threatening, implicitly, explicitly, Paul Ryan, Col. Allen West, Mike Pence is gonna be out of the House of Representatives. He’ll be the governor of Indiana. Maybe we can run someone else as governor of Indiana, to run for the governorship, ’cause Pence is obviously a sellout. Can I have the whole list of sellouts? I need the list so I can make sure I understand who’s going to get the primary challenge.”

“It’s a very odd way to go about things if we have a common goal,” Ingraham continued, urging tea party-aligned Republicans to seek a “real and meaningful” role — “not just, ok, I’m the spoiler here. I stood on principle, everybody else is impure.”

“You can stand on that soapbox and it might make you feel good in the moment. It make might you feel good to put out these Facebook postings,” she said. “But in the end, does it actually advance your cause? And does it advance the cause of fiscal restraint, which I think we all have?”…”

The Pink Flamingo has been telling you that the Koch Brothers were about lining their own pockets and protecting their own interests.

Des Moines Register

We all do something, every once in awhile, that is unethical.  We are human.  The bitter irony of the entire tea party movement, and their abject lack of ethical decency is the fact that they are, they claim, based on an infamous act of civil disobedience – the Boston Tea Party.

What they either forget or do not know is that the Boston Tea Party was a criminal activity.  The men who perpetrated it were drunk at the time.  The punch they drank at their meeting previous to the incident was to have been made without “spirits”.  The maid who was refilling the punch did so with rum, repeatedly. If they had been stone cold sober, they never would have been so brazen.  No one would have, unless they were crazy.*

Also not mentioned is the fact that John Hancock was a profiteer, gaining financially by smuggling illegal tea into Boston. Not only did he stand to be prosecuted for the illegal activity of smuggling, but he stood to lose a heck of a lot of money.

Ethics please?

There was a distinct difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution.  Thomas Jefferson was the inspiration for the French Revolution, never denouncing the Terror, until he was backed into a corner to do so.


I’m sure Charles and David Koch and George Soros are perfectly lovely gentlemen.  If you are a conservative, you are taught to hate George Soros.  If you are liberal, you are taught to hate the Koch Brothers.

There is NOTHING ethical about what either party is doing. They are contributing to the degradation of our republic by funding causes that will profit them, financially.  There is NOTHING illegal about what they are doing. There is NOTHING immoral about what they are doing.

There is nothing wrong, illegal, or immoral about paying writers, hacks, operatives, lobbyists, bloggers, and politicians to do one’s bidding.   When a person is in a position to spend tens of millions of dollars doing something like this, they absolutely pervert what this nation is all about.  They render my support of a candidate or a cause absolutely useless.  They render the $2000 I can donate per cycle a joke.

The Pink Flamingo is increasingly disgusted over the way outside interests are going into various states to manipulate elections for THEIR purposes, ignoring the will of the people who live in that state. Outside interests have poured at least $30 million into the recalls in Wisconsin. Marco Rubio has announced he is planning a PAC to get the right people elected. Don’t get me wrong, I like Rubio. I do not approve of these PACs – UNLESS they are helping to donate money during the final cycle of an election.

“…A top aide to Rubio declined Friday to provide any details about the committee’s goals, but the rising Republican star – who many consider a top vice presidential candidate in 2012 – would be able to use the PAC to curry favor with candidates and colleagues by making donations to their campaigns. The creation of the PAC was first reported in Friday’s POLITICO Influence.

Earlier this week, fellow freshman Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a co-founder of the chamber’s tea party caucus, rolled out his leadership PAC, the Constitutional Conservatives Fund, which is “dedicated to the cause of finding, funding, and supporting conservative candidates who are committed to the cause of restoring constitutionally limited government,” according to its website.

The tea party caucus’s two other founders – Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) – also have similar PACs. Paul’s RAND PAC, or Reinventing A New Direction, aims to “support and elect Pro-Liberty, Pro-Constitution candidates,” while DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund was instrumental in helping to elect tea-party candidates in 2010, including Rubio and Paul.

Paul’s PAC has raised about $68,000 since its creation in March, while DeMint’s PAC raised nearly $2 million in the first six months of this year, according to FEC records. DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund spent nearly $8 million in the 2010 election, helping to propel Rubio past then-Gov. Charlie Crist, the candidate favored by the Republican establishment, in the GOP primary….”

There’s a heck of a lot of talk about Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives PAC. He just gave away oodles of money to help the conservative cause. You might want to check his list. He gave away piles of money losing the US Senate.

Open Secrets

There is nothing preventing the great political plutocrats who wish to mold the nation into their personal version of what it should be from doing so. There is nothing preventing Fred Phelps from causing emotional distress to the families of our heroes. There is nothing preventing Terry Jones from burning a Koran. There is nothing to prevent a government shutdown over finances.

The Kochs plan to raise $88 million to help tamper with the 2012 elections.

Frum Forum

Try this. It is BAD for George Soros to manipulate Media Matters, but the Koch Brothers get a pass by the right.

Exiled Online

From the Roosevelt Institute:

Roosevelt Institute

What they are doing is unethical.  It ought to be illegal.

*Disclosure:  The Pink Flamingo is related to several of the individuals involved in the Boston Tea Party, John Hancock, and is directly descended from at least 28 DAR Patriot Ancestors.



One thought on “There Is a Difference Between Ethical, Legal, Moral

  1. An individual like Jack Marshall may think he specializes in ethics, but he is very careful that his ethics are very politically correct.

Comments are closed.