What do abortion, gun control, gay marriage, ObamaCare, federal spending and illegal immigration have in common? All are controversial from a liberal point of view because each challenges an accepted point of view based on traditional morality, which in America, was a Judeo-Christian morality. No direct assault on those moral principles could succeed unless the left controlled the debate, avoiding the direct confrontation of state and moral authority. This turns the debate from one of absolute moral truths to one of reasoned abatement of morality in a process I call qualitative easing. That is the hook that many Conservatives swallow, that somehow, absolute morality can be achieved by reason, moving from gray areas to absolute findings of right and wrong. The abortion issue has yielded the standard template for the debate employing the tactic of qualitative easing.

In Roe v. Wade, five philosopher kings posing as Supreme Court justices had decided before any arguments were heard that America would have legalized abortion. Their job was to deconstruct the Constitution and sever its interpretation from any influence based on religious morality. In essence, they told the American people "we don't care what you believe; we will interpret the law according to our beliefs, not yours." The court entertained various scientific arguments to reconcile the obvious conflict between their morality and that of a majority of the American people. Enter qualitative easing to create a debate about when life begins rather than acknowledge the obvious, faith based answer. The "viability" standard became the reasoned cloak of legality to justify an immoral act now posing as a newly found Constitutional right, "a woman's right to choose." By qualitative easing, murder has been redefined and will be permitted under "reasoned" circumstances.

A similar tactic is used to frame elements of the gun control debate. What is a "high capacity" magazine? The moment you attempt an answer, you have taken the bait in the process of qualitative easing. In the power hungry mind of an elitist, any number of bullets above zero is a high capacity magazine, but they will start with any number to put the issue on the table and argue the number down from there. However, even this ploy about magazine capacity obscures the true qualitative easing under way, and that is public acceptance that the federal government can infringe on your right to bear arms by all means of regulations. The moral right of self-defense, including against government, will be reasoned out of existence.

Once the power to dictate the morality of murder has been seized by the philosopher kings, no other moral issue is beyond their jurisdiction. Gay marriage is yet another confrontation between traditional morality and elitist power. Pandering for the "gay vote" is not an issue, it is not that significant, but the ability to supplant moral beliefs with elitist diktats is significant. Christian tolerance for homosexuality is not enough and must be replaced with full acceptance and moral equality. Qualitative easing casts homosexual marriage as a human rights issue when it is nothing of the sort. There is no human right to demand other people accept your behavior. The progression by qualitative easing is clear; gay unions, gay marriage, and ultimately whatever the elitists decree to bend your morality to their will. If you do not bend, they will break you.

ObamaCare is no different as we watch establishment Republicans jump on the bandwagon. They claim it is now the law and that is the excuse to abandon opposition. The debate shifts through qualitative easing from one of opposition to one of reform. In other words, ObamaCare will be just fine if the Republicans get to run it. ObamaCare is not only a disaster in the making but morally repugnant because it puts the power of life and death in the hands of intellectual egotists who are more interested in the creation of their perfect system than the "units" it treats. The establishment Republicans will now debate the regulations and make those the issue.

Our major problem with federal spending is that it is mostly unconstitutional. Most of it is politicized charity and not just for the poor. The legal principle that a tax for a benefit is Constitutional is a total fabrication. There is no such clause or expression of intent in the Constitution but qualitative easing demands we discuss the amounts of spending and not the constitutionality of spending. Stealing from one group to fund spending on another group is the dictated morality, and "thou shalt not steal" is for old fuddy-duddy Christian moralists who want to starve children, deprive us of green energy and pollute with impunity.

The debate about illegal immigration is also an exercise in qualitative easing. What exceptions will the law make? Isn't that the focus of the debate now? Forget the illegality, the government charity magnet, the high unemployment that keeps wages suppressed and the pandering to any group large enough to get a politician's attention. The redefined moral issue is not about fairness to strangers in our land but dealing with home crashers and the criminals that come with them. The redefined moral issue is not about the law, but about accommodating the desires of people who want illegal immigration for cheap votes and cheap labor.

Qualitative easing is about lowering the quality of our moral foundation to prepare it for eventual eradication. Raising issues based on false premises for "reasoned" debate is the lure to separate people from their moral absolutes to accept a negotiated morality. In utopian, liberal America, there can only be one god, and it is not the one in the Bible. Woe to those who believe otherwise.