Archive for the ‘Social Justice’ Category

Social Injustice Because Someone Succeeds?

by Rev. Austin Miles on Monday, September 16th, 2013

This is article 62 of 83 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

Social Justice means that people who work and succeed must accept that they are selfish and be compelled to share their wealth with those who do not. It is social injustice for anyone to feel inferior and not be a part of another person’s success. Very effective, skillful misuse of words.

There are many ministers who are far better preachers than this writer. There are writers whose abilities place them far above others.

There are those who are certainly better looking and popular. And many who live in more elaborate houses and drive fancier cars.

Teenagers are the top contenders for social injustice classification for all of the above. They become withdrawn, silently angry and resentful for their own lack of standing or success.

Just being around those who are thought of as superior, or seen as someone with a mental strength not possessed by others, can be intimidating to those who find themselves in their presence. The resentment begins to boil.

That would be easy to understand—to feel inferior in the shadow of another person’s strength and skills, followed by the admiration they receive from others, while the one observing accepts the role of ‘wall-flower.’  So what’s the use of even trying? One could never match that. Really?

Preaching is an art form. This chaplain has never professed to be a preacher but does not think it injustice because others are fantastic behind the pulpit, which exceeds the abilities of this minister. But God has dealt with me differently with different skills and approaches, with an effective speaking ability to occupy the space entrusted by Him to these hands.  I admire those who give dynamite sermons and whose appearances on TV are star quality. Admire yes, but never trying to compete.

There are writers, whose skills are so high that I would not even attempt to equal them. Authors like the late Irving Stone and present day movie and concert critic, Richard Scheinin of the Contra Costa Times.

Scheinin is masterful in his knowledge of his subject and astonishing in his refreshing use of words, such as his review of “Bolero” conducted by Michael Tilson Thomas of The San Francisco Symphony.

He described a lively violin portion as ‘like a riot of fire flies.” He stated how the conductor subtly danced with his shoulders as the intensity of the piece began to build.

But it is not considered ‘social injustice’ for that writer to be more talented than this one. We should not compare ourselves to others or try to compete, but rather celebrate individual giftings.

The term, Social Justice, is one framed by Karl Marx and the entire Socialist-Communist Party for the purpose of causing national unrest and instability by turning groups of people against other groups of people. As that destabilization takes hold, weakening the population, the Czars prepare to move in to take over. That is precisely the agenda and exactly what is happening today.

This morning, I saw a young black man without a shirt, shuffle-walking across a street, posture stooped, eyes darting in all directions. His body language poured out persecution, rejection, inferiority and anger at the people on the streets and in the cars around him.

Click to continue reading “Social Injustice Because Someone Succeeds?”
Go straight to Post

The Revolution Passed in the Night

by Dr. Robert Owens on Friday, April 26th, 2013

This is article 57 of 83 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

Many things are holding the headlines hostage, the terrorist attacks, the crippling effects of Obamacare, the prospect of expanding war in Syria, and as always Iran. 

There is one over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact that America has a President who advances values and policies diametrically opposed to the traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans.  From bowing to foreign leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to fundamentally transform America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many the Manchurian Candidate.   

Elected the first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of America into a welfare state.  His bureaucratically imposed policies such as Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are blatant end runs around the authority of a Congress that overwhelmingly rejected both.  The alarming reality we all must face is that for the first time in American history we may actually have a president who is anti-American. 

Barack Obama is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric.  Such as: 

“In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”  Emphasis added. 

“And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth …”  Emphasis added. 

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties — says what the states can’t do to you — says what the Federal government can’t do to you — but it doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that …” Emphasis added.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Open Letter to Wall Street Occupiers

by American Grams on Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

This is article 16 of 70 in the topic Communism

Recently I have come to know a number of immigrants, many from communist countries, who are speaking up about what they see happening in the United States. They came to this country to obtain the freedoms not available in their homelands, and they cherish these freedoms more than anything. They are warning the citizens of the US of the correlations between their communist homelands and what they are witnessing in the United States today under President Obama. When you speak to them you can see the fear and feel the desperation, begging us to help stop what is happening in our country.

Below is a letter received from a former Russian citizen.

Dear Occupier:

Do you really mean all that Fair Share, Fair Shots, Social Justice, Equality? Do you know what these words mean in REAL life?

FAIR SHOTS means that 200 million innocent people were tortured and murdered by their own communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, East Germany, Algeria and Cuba.

FAIR SHARE means that tens of millions of innocent citizens were and are incarcerated in the labor camps or mental institutions by communist regimes. Tens of thousands of them had died and are dying of starvation, extreme conditions, diseases and hard work.

SOCIAL JUSTICE means forced labor of the prisoners of the labor camps; no freedom, no liberty, no rights, and no justice at all under any communist regime.

EQUALITY means that the members of the government of the communist regime live in multimillion dollar palaces, having billions of dollars stashed in the Swiss banks, and the rest of the population lives in abject poverty, misery and constant fear and terror.

Communist government officials have their own dollar stores, private schools, exclusive universities, hospitals and excellent health care. None of it is available to citizens.

Communist governments take away weapons from the citizens by the decrees and then murder tens of millions of their own innocent people. They call it gun control.

You don’t believe me? Just Google the information on Labor Camps, Holodomor, History of USSR, History of Soviet Ukraine, etc.


Former citizen of Russia


Go straight to Post

Uncivil Rights

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, February 26th, 2012

This is article 19 of 47 in the topic Equal Rights/Civil Rights

The civil rights movement is a success story, so much so that any and every movement has found that it can borrow the narrative and tactics of it to ram through whatever measures it likes. And so we come to the year 2012 where civil rights means men in dresses having the right to use the ladies room and the right of terrorist groups to be free from police scrutiny– among many other equally insane “rights”.

Much as the Civil Rights movement went from trying to reverse legal inequality embedded in law to trying to enforce an equality of outcome in every sphere from the commercial to the educational to the social by depriving others of their rights, succeeding movements have borrowed the narrative of inequality and the tactics of achieving equal outcomes, even when such outcomes are physically impossible.

We are for example obligated to believe that surgical intervention can transform women into men and that the only differences between the two can be eliminated with a few incisions and a few hormones. Applying the civil rights model moves the question from the realms of science and philosophy to the moral absolutism of resisting oppression. And that is the left’s home field.

The left is constantly on the prowl for the oppressed, even if the new oppressed are men who want to use the ladies room. And the oppressed can never be denied anything they want, instead there is an affirmative obligation on the entitled people who are not confused about which bathroom they want to use, to prove that they are granting every possible privilege and courtesy to the bewildered and confused.

Guilty until proven innocent is the new approach. It is not enough to not actively discriminate, we must prove that we are not discriminating by meeting our diversity quotas. We are forced to become the Stakhanovites of political correctness, exceeding our diversity quotas as a model to the nation.  That means everyplace must look exactly like “America”, a phrase that is best interpreted as meaning that every workplace must look like the ones on television. And every ladies room must have at least one man in a dress.

Very little of this has to do with the kind of rights that were fought for from Appomattox to Selma. Instead individual freedom and equality before the law has been twisted to justify a state of legal inequality and the deprivation of individual freedoms. Rather than a color-blind society, we have achieved a color conscious society in which everyone knows their place on the great ladder of diversity.

Slavery has not gone away, we are just confronted with it on a day to day basis. Our slaves live in China or in Africa. They serve the same purposes that slaves did before the Civil War, they make things cheaply so that they can be sold cheaply. The only difference is that we rarely pass them on the street or see advertisements for slave auctions.

There is still slavery even in the United States. Mexican and Chinese laborers whose families are held hostage back home, and prosperous Muslim families who bring along their tradition of the house slave, often teenage girls who are treated little better than dogs.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Guns, Butter, Jobs and Birth Control

by Daniel Greenfield on Sunday, February 19th, 2012

This is article 22 of 83 in the topic Redistribution of wealth/socialism

The old totalitarian paradigm was guns or butter. The Soviet Union could provide its people with the basic food groups or it could run a military race to conquer as much of the world as possible. As a totalitarian ideology, it naturally chose the latter.

The modern incarnation of the hammer and sickle, the liberals who took it slow, working from within the system instead of seizing the reins and executing anyone who got in the way, isn’t big on guns. The Clinton and Obama administrations both inflicted massive cuts on the military because it was extraneous to their domestic goals. They didn’t want guns, but they didn’t want butter either. They wanted a third thing.

The Obama Administration is about as interested in creating jobs as the denizens of the Kremlin were in making sure that every Russian family had plenty of milk and butter on the table. Totalitarian ideologies don’t care about individual welfare and they certainly are not interested in individual empowerment. An improved economy would weaken the left, it would undermine its central program of promoting fear and dependence on a social safety net and a rights infrastructure administered by them.

The left is not very good at discussing the economy. Ask its leaders to apportion blame for economic problems and they are right there with denunciations of the banks, corporations and a thousand other factors. But ask it how to repair an economy and after some mumbling the answer is usually to fund a bunch of its pet projects that have nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with its social agenda.

The left’s goal is to transform society, not to empower individuals to make their own choices. That is why an arena like birth control is its natural territory. A society with state subsidized birth control has a low birth rate, low marriage rate, high demand for social subsidies and a high demand for immigrants to compensate for the low birth rate and pay for the social subsidies. Now whether or not you think such a society is a good thing, it is the kind of society that the left wants.

Given a choice between universal birth control and universal free market jobs, the former is a priority and the latter a threat. It’s not just birth control, there are any number of elements, which may be benign in and of themselves, but which fit into a larger picture of the kind of society it wants.

The Communist era left thought big. If there was hunger, they would grow more wheat. If there weren’t enough jobs, they would create more factories. It was a grandiose insanity that eventually brought down Communism, but it was healthier than the post-human left which is declinist. If there is hunger, then their solution is to raise the price of food with a tax that will subsidize meals for the poor. If there aren’t enough jobs, the solution is for more people to go on the dole and for everyone to make do with less.

From a distance this looks like wealth redistribution, but it’s actually a program for teaching everyone to make do with less.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

The Pyramid of Positive Rights

by Daniel Greenfield on Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

This is article 17 of 30 in the topic Forms of Government

The fundamental difference between a free society and a nanny state, is that in a free society, negative rights are maximized between the individual and the government, and the individual and other individuals. In a nanny state, positive rights are maximized between the individual and the government, and both positive and negative rights are maximized between the individual and other individuals.

What does that mean? A negative right in relation to the government is a freedom from compulsion. Freedom of Speech is a negative right that prevents government from interfering with speech. Similarly freedom of religion and the right to bear arms create negative spaces in religion and firearms which the government may not intrude upon.

When you hear talk of a right to health care or a right to housing by the government, those are positive rights, creating an obligation on the part of the government to carry out a course of action, e.g. free  housing or cheap health care.

This is an obligation or entitlement by the government to you. But since all government rights devolve to the people, what this really means is that we are collectively obligated to provide health care or housing. And that we are enjoyed from collectively using the mechanisms of government to interfere with speech, religion or firearms ownership.

On an individual basis, negative rights are freedoms that I have from you, and positive rights are obligations that I have to you. A negative right prevents you from trespassing on my property, on the other hand a positive right demands that I put up bilingual signs out of respect for your culture.

A society where negative rights are maximized, values individuality over social harmony. However a society where positive rights are maximized values social harmony over individual freedom.

The major shift in American life has been from a social contract based on negative rights to one based on positive rights. Negative rights have been in decline for some time, even some amendments in the Bill of Rights have been severely weakened– and most of the civil rights debates today are over positive rights.

This is the victory of the French Revolution over the American Revolution. The American Revolution was aimed at a change of government, not a social transformation. It saw repression in political terms, that once removed and backed by negative rights, would enable a free society to maintain itself. But the French Revolution aimed at a complete social transformation, not merely deposing a king, but creating a new revolutionary consensus.

The fundamental difference between the American Bill of Rights and the French Rights of Man ,is that the former is unconcerned with the society, and the latter makes its principles and even most of its negative rights contingent on social harmony.

Consider the difference between the Declaration of Independence’s “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” and the Declaration of the Rights of Man’s “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

NYT Op-Ed: Should ‘Ugly’ Be a Protected Class?

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

nullThere’s another op-ed in the New York Times that gives The Onion a run for its money. The column is entitled, “Ugly? You May Have a Case.” In it, the author, a professor of economics (naturally) at the University of Texas, Austin, argues that it’s time for ugly people to be recognized as a protected minority:

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

Making “ugly” a protected class? Now there’s a law that would sail through that freakshow of a Congress we have.

Life on this earth will never truly be fair until that day when ugly people — people so ugly that when they were born the doctor slapped their parents… people so ugly that their mothers had to get drunk to breast feed them… people so ugly that strip clubs pay them to put their clothes on… people so ugly that when they were kids their fathers took them to work every day so they didn’t have to kiss them goodbye… people so ugly that when they visit the haunted house they’re handed job applications — can take those bags off their heads and shout from every mountaintop, acne ointment aisle at Wal-Mart, Star Wars convention or NOW meeting, “free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last!”

Go straight to Post

Washington’s Magical Thinking

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

This is article 8 of 70 in the topic Communism

The term, “magical thinking”, has been around a while to describe what individuals do to cope with the vicissitudes of life. I, for example, regularly buy a Mega Millions lottery ticket in the hope of winning when, logically, rationally, I know the odds are millions to one of that ever happening.

Magical thinking can be found in all aspects of life and it is surely magical thinking that caused America’s politicians, starting back around the turn of the last century, to believe that a really big government could take care of everyone when, prior to that, self reliance, support from the family structure, and hard work were the early guiding principles.

Indeed, the U.S. Constitution is testimony to the Founding Father’s intense distrust of a centralized government—hence checks and balances—and the fallibility of individuals entrusted with power over others. It turns out they were right because now there is no aspect of our lives into which government does not intrude.

A lot of this can be traced to the rise of Communism, the handiwork of Karl Marx, and its adaptation into Socialism, a modified form. In 1917 Russia had Communism imposed on it during the Bolshevik Revolution as the antidote to the rule of the czars. In time it utterly failed, but few have taken a lesson from that. It wreaked havoc and death on Russians for over seventy years.

Indeed, throughout the last century, wars were required to defeat various forms of totalitarian rule. Even the Peoples Republic of China eventually embraced its own form of Capitalism while retaining power in the hands of a centralized government.

Communism is a kind of magical thinking based on collectivism that always seems to come back to a handful of men ruling by coercion.

In 1908, the Socialist Party nominated Eugene V. Debs to run for president. A dedicated unionist, Debs had studied Marxism while in jail. What he believed then is still prevalent today. “When I joined the Socialist Party,” said Debs in accepting the nomination, “I was taught that the wish of the individual was subordinate to the party will, and that when the party commanded it was my duty to obey.”

“I am not satisfied with things as they are,” said Debs, “and I know that no matter what administration is in power, even were it a Socialist administration, there will be no material change in the condition of the people until we have a new social system based upon the mutual economic interests of the people; until you and I and all of us collectively own those things that we collectively need and use.” Debs was soundly defeated.

The election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, however, brought socialism to its zenith of power in America. He remained in office from 1933 until his death in 1945. Social Security is collectivism. Medicare and Medicaid is collectivism. Government “make work” programs are collectivism.

A government that owns an auto company is collectivism. A government that can shut down oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is collectivism. A government that decides how much mileage the car you buy must achieve is collectivism. A government that thwarts the building of new utilities to meet the needs of a growing population and then instructs people to reduce their use of electricity is collectivism.

Click to continue reading “Washington’s Magical Thinking”
Go straight to Post

Edge of the Spending New Frontier

by Daniel Greenfield on Thursday, July 21st, 2011

This is article 16 of 30 in the topic Forms of Government

The debt ceiling debate is less about spending than it is about the purpose of government. Under the impact of an economic recession, the train of the Great Society is approaching the edge of the New Frontier. Both sides are still trying to work out a New Deal, but another cuts and spending formula is not the solution. What we need is a serious and earnest discussion about why we are compulsively spending money.

A cocaine addict who runs out of money doesn’t have a spending problem, he has a drug problem. Telling him to cut back on how much money he spends on cocaine, or to shop around for cheaper cocaine isn’t the solution. It’s not about how much he’s spending, but about why. The problem isn’t in the math, it’s in the mindset.

Our cocaine is social justice. Like most junkies who are willing to sell anything and everything to keep the supply coming, Obama’s position in the budget debate is take everything– especially the military, but leave the social justice and the big government that administers it on the table. And also like most junkies, he has an endless supply of self-righteous speeches denouncing the people who just want him to stop.

In the rush of words, he postures, conflates compromise with confrontation, threatens and urges everyone to work together. There is no consistent message, only egotistical aggression and defensive need. Strip away the verbiage and you come away with a chorus of, “Mine, My Way, Mine”.

With all addictions, it is important to look for the root cause. The psychological weakness that allows the chemical rush to take over and become the defining principle of life. In this case it is a basic split over the purpose of government.

These competing visions of government are rival philosophies with differing views on human nature. They cannot even agree on what the nature of “fair” is and that makes reconciling on a national agenda nearly impossible. Is fairness socially determined or self-determined. Is it the function of government to spread the wealth or to protect a system where wealth acquisition is accessible. Is the economy a function of individual choices or organizational mandates.

Government as the caretaker of the system and of Big Aunty who uses the system to make society fairer. Both claim populist allegiances but any system that sets out to remake society is doomed to an elitist and totalitarian nature. The only authentic populists are protesting in reaction to Big Aunty and her nanny state.

The functional state is clashing with the utopian state. The functionalists want to trim back the utopian programs of the state and pare it back down to its vital functions. But the utopians don’t even recognize the economy as something apart from the dictates of the state. Spending never has to be regulated, because it is only a micro-function of their system whose negative effects can be nullified through other programs. Or, “Why cut spending when you can just print more money.”

The economic solipsism of the left may be irresponsible lunacy, but it is part and parcel of their approach to everything. Their utopian state and its philosopher-czars are given the power to alter everything without a single ray of light allowed to penetrate the gloom of their dogma.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obama Mixes Clay with Iron – 2012 America’s Valley of Decision?

by Rev. Michael Bresciani on Friday, June 24th, 2011

Valley-of-Decision.jpgAs the economy crashes around us Mr. Obama seems content to continue tinkering with the social fabric of the nation as the elected voice of the far left ideologues and the throngs of citizens who are content to let government collect taxes and make regulations; as long as they can continue in personal prurient pursuits that would make our forefathers cringe.

Social tinkering may be second only to golf for this president. Obama’s public stance on marriage has changed several times since his days as a senator, but now with his influence as president his final stated position seems to have come full circle. His choice to instruct the Attorney General not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) says it all.

How convenient that Obama happens to be speaking at the “Gala with the Gay Community” this week in New York on the same day a vote may be made in the New York state senate on the redefinition of marriage. A little presidential boost could seriously affect the outcome of that vote. Coincidence; don’t count on it. But at the top of the news, troop withdrawals from Afghanistan have swept away our attention.

It is all too easy to make general surveys of the president’s latest incursion into social changes that he envisions for America or to make allusions and comparisons to conditions the Bible says will prevail as we approach the last days. But never has one prophecy begged so much to be compared to the thrust seen in the administration of Barack Obama.

Daniel was one of those prophets that was graced with the ability to see not only the events to come in his own time but he was given a clear revelation of details and events all the way up to the last moments of time before the Lord will come and remove power from the hands of mostly corrupt world leaders.

Daniel described kingdoms that began in what the Bible calls the times of the gentiles (Time when Israel was no longer on the front burner) all the way to the time when Israel would be in favor again. That time when Israel is restored is said to be approximately a generation long, has obviously already begun. Some say it began in 1948 when Israel became a nation again and others argue that since all prophecy cannot be fulfilled without Jerusalem being in the hands of the Jews, that the last generation actually began in 1967 when Israel retook that city.

In Daniels interpretation of King Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the rise and fall of gentile nations (Dan 2: 1f) he saw a very disturbing picture of the very last kingdom on earth. It turns out that the world finally does manage to produce its much coveted “one world order,” but it is weak and has only a short time to exist.

The kingdom that finally emerges to create the one world order is divided and deeply polarized. Daniel describes it as an admixture of iron and clay.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin