Doc's Talk: Social Justice-what do today’s politicians really mean?

Monday, May 10, 2010

Social Justice-what do today’s politicians really mean?

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

It was early May 2010 and one of President Obama’s close associates made the following public statement: “We Won't Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal in Everybody's House.” Yes, the Rev. Al Sharpton uttered these words clearly presenting the philosophical intention and definition behind the current Administration’s economic and social policies. 1 The mantra today inside and outside the Whitehouse is “social justice”-they suggest it is necessary to make the world the way it ought to be (in their eyes). It is useful to ask according to whose view should the world be made? It is imperative that we step back a moment and examine the current use of the expression “social justice”.
This term is not new; it has been part of our lexicon since the 1800’s. 2,3, During our recent history this idea has resonated within the Political Left in the USA. It has become a rallying slogan for any number of special interests purporting to represent minority groups in America. Politicians are applying the term to discuss what a “socially just” world would look like and they insist that fairness, equality, and human rights become the standard bearer for the new world order (as if they do not exist now). The operational tactics employed by this group include but are not restricted to the following:
• Income redistribution
• Progressive taxation
• Property redistribution
Before discussing the tactics being used, it is important to understand that the following basic assumption is true, accurate and applicable to all segments of the population. Proponents of this concept insist that justice within our society is either missing or is unequally applied to everyone. In other words every American should be entitled to equal rights under the law, equal opportunities, and that everyone on the economic continuum from poor to wealthy deserves an “even playing field.” The assumption is that these currently do not exist. So what do the words “just” or “fair” mean, and what defines equal? Who should be responsible for making sure society is a just and fair place? How do you implement policies regarding social justice? Alternately, should you legislate for justice in society or merely rely on the moral compass of society’s members?”4

Take a moment and reflect upon the preceding concepts. Then ask yourselves one or more of the following questions:
• If opportunities are so poor here, why do Mexican Nationals and others risk their lives to enter our country illegally to seek employment?
• Why do tens of thousands of immigrants from all over the world seek new lives in America every year?
• Is it possible for individuals to transcend their socio-economic status and find success in America-do you know any one who has done so?
• Are there tens of thousands of jobs right now in America going unfilled?
• Can everyone who wants a basic education not receive one in our public school system?
• Is it possible in many states to enter post-secondary schools to further their education at either no cost or little cost to them?
• Are there not civil rights, civil liberties, and other non-discrimination laws and policies operating daily in the USA?
• Do not religions of all persuasion freely practice here?
• If all of the preceding is so disparate why do people all over the world seek to be part of our country?
As individuals read and answer the preceding questions a segment of our population will answer “No” or “Yes but…” I understand this point of view as it reflects upon a shifting mood within the USA. Rather than focus upon what could be possible for people, specific social and political groups, for their own personal needs, have seized upon the historical moment to see the glass as half-full.

Clearly the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and the support people serving all entities, numbering in the thousands, operate within a Leftist agenda. Their actions and even their own words further indicate that their core philosophy is grounded in Marxist-Socialist dogma. We do know that a person’s belief system dictates his/her life agenda and in the case of the aforementioned people this means government control over economic, social, educational and geo-political decisions.
The strategies are in place and several tactics have been placed in operation. The controlling political party has the power and this current administration is using it in a manner consistent with the way they want the nation to be. Their individual motivations for doing so are varied and are to be discussed in another article. What is in play now is the demonization of all that is good in America. I’ll not repeat the litany, if you have been paying attention you know. Concomitantly, they began a series of fundamental changes in our economic delivery systems and within our legal system. They use a series of events to justify their positions. Note the immediate shift in offshore drilling and exploration support when the tragic oil accident recently occurred in our Gulf of Mexico. They play on the sympathies and good nature of humans and suggest anyone who does not agree are less than concerned and considerate-divide the population using emotions, word-pictures, personal interviews and video clips. Introduce and repeat often “it is time for social justice”! Convince a segment, that all that’s needed is a segment of the population to believe they have been wronged and you create the necessary divide. Curiously, many on the other side support this demonization as they believe and then feel guilty for “causing” the inequities. The divide grows. Use personalities, especially young ones from the worlds of entertainment, business, green movement, throw in a few recognizable older names seen in the media and you have the evidence in front of you-if they say so, it must be true.

The current Whitehouse group is clever and knows how to use people while the people unknowingly support their own downfall. Select an issue that touches everyone’s heart and pocket book, e.g., healthcare. Create the belief that as an American you have a right and are entitled to either free or affordable health care-speak to the public’s ever-increasing entitlement mentality. The tipping point in dividing this country is nearly complete-if you can get 51% of a population dependent upon a government for fulfillment of perceived basic needs you gain control!

The Left hijacked the expression “social justice” intentionally turning it to further their agenda. In doing so others of us have been cast under a dark cloud of suspicion and/or targeted as naysayers for human rights and human freedoms. Nothing could be further from the truth!

We do ask the following questions:
• Who should be responsible for making sure society is a just and fair place?

• But what do the words “just” or “fair” mean, and what defines equal?

• How do you implement policies regarding social justice?

• Should you legislate for justice in society or merely rely on the moral compass of society’s members5

I believe government has a limited role in all of the preceding. As a nation we have made great strides for leveling the “playing field”; because some still do not have what they now view as entitled to have does not refute the facts that this is a nation committed to serving its citizens justly.

I am prepared to have discussions and debates with regards to this point. Let us address the idea that human needs and wants do not direct the so-called social inequities found in a general society. In terms of human behavior people are motivated for a variety of reasons to behave in a particular manner. To suggest that everyone should have…(you fill in the blank) is not only absurd, it is an irresponsible statement. Life is about choices and some/many do make choices that dictate their social and economic outcomes. I call this freedom! Social justice is served when humans have the freedom to make decisions governing their lives and I believe in the fortitude and perseverance of the American people. After all we arrived here, where we are today as the result of a “controlled” government interfering into our lives. The very people who argue for this with respect to social identity and religious practice are now the very individuals leading us toward socialism. Focus upon core beliefs has been lost or jaded, I understand. However, I will not deter from declaring freedom requires responsible thinking, policies and actions on our part.

End Notes
1. Al Sharpton's idea of 'social justice http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/al_sharptons_idea_of_social_ju.html. May 7, 2010
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_papers
3. A Living Wage: Its Ethical and Economic Aspects. New York: Macmillan Co., 1906
4. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm
5. ibid

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk