Social Justice

There is a lot of talk about “Social Justice” and “Fairness” coming from Barack Obama and the Progressive Left.  This of course is nothing more than an attempt to sanitize their Marxist redistribution plans and to use the greed and covetous inclinations of their voting base to keep them in power.

The powerful voice of Black Conservative Thomas Sowell definively answers the question of “social justice” that the Progressive Left for so long has distorted.

"The question is not what anybody deserves. The question is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what anyone else deserves. You can talk about 'social justice' all you want. But what death taxes boil down to is letting politicians take money from widows and orphans to pay for goodies that they will hand out to others, in order to buy votes to get reelected[.]  That is not social justice or any other kind of justice."

There is nothing fair about politicians confiscating so much money with the Death Tax that most affected family farms and small businesses are simply destroyed and liquidated.  What is fair about destroying the hard work and the blood, sweat, and tears legacy of generations of family members?

There is nothing fair about politicians giving money, for the purpose of buying political support and votes, to persons who can work and earn their own wages.  Creating covetous greed, laziness, and dependence is simply an evil that has brought much despair and destruction to our nation.

We are seeing clearly now what Soft Socialism does to a people and to a once great, powerful, and generous nation.  Unfortunately, uncontrolled Socialism results in the recipients of the stolen money wanting ever more entitlements and eventually calling for the deaths of their monetary benefactors.  As I have discussed yesterday, and at other times, the Left is increasingly calling not only for the confiscation of the wealth of Conservatives but also for the burning of their homes, their being tried for their Conservative beliefs, and being executed.

As President Ronald Reagan warned us,

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

  • Comment
Comments (65) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
5
5

What is a Black Conservative?

Is that a synonym for "angry," as in "He was an angry Conservative"?

6
1

Fair taxes

Are you talking about corporate welfare and unfair tax breaks to companies who do not need it in this statement?

"There is nothing fair about politicians giving money, for the purpose of buying political support and votes, to persons who can work and earn their own wages.  Creating covetous greed, laziness, and dependence is simply an evil that has brought much despair and destruction to our nation."

6
4

@GTX

No, I don't think so. The first part of "the purpose of buying political support and votes" sounds like he might be referring to corporate welfare, but the last part "to persons who can work and earn their own wages" he is definitely referring to the poor, downtrodden, disabled, etc, and stereotyping everyone as deadbeats.

May's line: "Creating covetous greed, laziness, and dependence is simply an evil that has brought much despair and destruction to our nation" will probably get him a first class ticket on the Lucifer Express.

5
4

In America, extreme levels of

In America, extreme levels of inequality have led to economic calamity. The Gilded Age extremes of the 1920s -- when the richest 1% owned about 44% of all private wealth -- were followed by the Great Depression. The excesses of the Bush years -- when the richest 1% owned nearly 40% of all private wealth -- were followed by the Great Recession.

And of course, the greatest period of growth and widely shared prosperity in the US came in the decades after World War II. And in those decades, public policy purposefully "spread wealth around." The top end tax rate was at 90%. With labor unions representing over 30% of the workforce, workers shared in the benefits of rising productivity. The GI Bill gave an entire generation of veterans access to college and affordable housing. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican president, built the interstate highway system vital to national competitiveness. Wall Street, shackled by New Deal reforms, went decades without a major bank crisis.

And from 1945 to about 1975, America grew together. The rich got richer, but the incomes of middle and low income Americans grew faster than those at the top. The broad middle class -- the heart of what made America exceptional -- was built step by step.

THIS IS FROM A SOURCE THAT I GOOGLED- rather than attack the source- as it may very well be the Huffington Post or ThinkProgress- how about responding to the information? Did extreme disparities in wealth lead to these 2 environments (Depression and Recession). What say you, Regressives???

5
5

May

I agree with your article. For far too long, we are made to believe that the money that will pass to other family members in wills should not go to the rightful heirs, but should instead go to the government for "redistribution". Why? Because liberals believe that those heirs did nothing to earn it, and therefore aren't deserving. I say that the "undeserving" are all of the liberal supporters who will be getting the money from their liberal leaders in exchange for their votes. They are the ones who have done nothing to deserve it. It is truly maddening. As I have said many times before, liberal policies are all about expanding their voter base as much as possible at the expense of the rest of the nation.

5
3

@Dorik

Great guns, you're on the warpath! Yeah, let's see what the Regressives have to say about this! LOL

5
3

@May Black and White....

May: "The powerful voice of Black Conservative Thomas Sowell..."

Then to be perfectly fair and balanced you should have closed with: "As Powerful White Conservative President Ronald Reagan warned us...."

N'est pas?

4
5

Attack what source?

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012041725/romneys-big-lie

Why should we consider a blogger on a website we've never heard of, "a source"?

You give us the writings of Robert Borosage? Would you listen to anything from Karl Rove? No, you wouldn't. Yet Borosage is much more extreme than a Karl Rove.

"A former New Left radical and onetime Director of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Robert Borosage co-founded (with Roger Hickey) both the Campaign for America’s Future and the Institute for America’s Future. He also founded and currently chairs the Progressive Majority Political Action Committee, the activist arm of a political networking organization whose aim is to help elect as many leftist political leaders as possible."

"In 1988 he left IPS to work on Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign, for which he served as a speechwriter and an assistant in framing responses to policy issues."

"Borosage also has worked for such political figures as Senators Paul Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, and Carol Moseley-Braun."

"In 1996 Borosage and Roger Hickey co-founded the Campaign for America's Future (CAF), and three years later they established a sister organization, the Institute for America's Future (IAF)."

4
5

@Obviousman

"Then to be perfectly fair and balanced you should have closed with: "As Powerful White Conservative President Ronald Reagan warned us....""

I think most of us here know who Ronald Reagan is, not so much with Thomas Sowell.

5
5

Billy Wayne

The left has to be reminded that there are black conservatives, and that they don't hold a monopoly on the African-American vote.

Oh, I do enjoy your tagline.

1
0

@dorotik

Was this information from the Michael Roberts blog?

4
4

@Billy Wayne Well.....

Billy Wayne: "Why should we consider a blogger on a website we've never heard of, "a source"?"

You make an excellent point.

Why should anyone outside of Lubbock County consider a blogger--May, on a website they've never heard of--lubbockonline, as "a source"?

5
4

@Billy Wayne Ummm.....

Billy Wayne, May has mentioned Sowell numerous times. Sowell's columns appear the the A-J ever now an then.

I mostly do not agree with his viewpoints, but he is an excellent writer and expresses his viewpoints clearly.

It would appear that you, May and Right is Right want to separate conservatives by their skin color.

You might want to read: "Who is 'Racist'?" http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/04/24/who_is_racist

4
4

@Obviousman

"Why should anyone outside of Lubbock County consider a blogger--May, on a website they've never heard of--lubbockonline, as "a source"?" Yet you are here to read Dr. May's blog...

I have never listed Dr. May as a source, why have you? I read May for his opinion. Today May refers to a Dr. Thomas Sowell column, someone I do use as a source.

3
0

@dorotik

Don't know the site you used, but the information is definitely the work of Larry Bartels. While he is widely cited, even in the JEC, there are rebuttals to his work. James Campbell cited a methodological flaw in his work; the failure to take into account the economic climate at the time the president took office. 'By controlling for the economic climate at the time the president took office, Campbell argued that, contrary to Bartels' conclusions, there was no noticeable difference between the economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents.' ------

4
5

Thomas Sowell

"Billy Wayne, May has mentioned Sowell numerous times. Sowell's columns appear the the (sic) A-J ever now an then."

The average AJ reader has not heard of Thomas Sowell.

"It would appear that you, May and Right is Right want to separate conservatives by their skin color."

Normally, I would not necessarily condone the use of 'Black Conservative', in this case it is more than justified since Sowell is writing about "social justice".

3
5

Race

Thomas Sowell's race is always mentioned by Dr May because a Black conservative is as hard to find as a Jewish Nazi.

3
1

From the collegefix . com

College Conservative writers Kevin Reagan and Atarah Golden discussed race, politics, and the upcoming election in a recent article. Golden mentioned the confusion–and anger–she regularly receives from liberals who don’t believe she can be both conservative and black:

Golden: I know what the polls are showing, and I know that there are some blacks who have said outright, “I’m not voting for him again; it was a mistake.” But there are still a lot of blacks who say they will vote for him again. And you’d think individuals like Allen West and Herman Cain would help blacks realize the error in their ways, but that isn’t the case at all. They, too, are called “Uncle Toms” and quickly dismissed. The media has done an excellent job distorting their image and what they represent. Many blacks have told me, “You’re on the wrong side; Republicans are only for rich and white people.” And they get this from NBC and CNN. Just the other day, Rep. Jim Moran told CNN host Martin Bashir that Allen West does not represent blacks because he opposes what President Obama represents. To us it’s absurd and disgusting, but people actually buy this, and it works.

Reagan: And that is why it is all the more important that voices like yours are heard!

Golden: Yes, people are made to believe that you aren’t authentically black if you do not support the Democrat Party.

Reagan: …or that you are somehow “self-hating.” (jokingly) Do you hate yourself?

Golden: Haha. Actually, just the other day on The Last Civil Right Facebook page, a black woman told me that I “loathe myself” because Obama has set the bar so high that I now feel inadequate and that I have to aim higher. I was blown away. I mean, I was absolutely floored. (laughing) I’ve received a lot of insults, but I think that one tops it.

4
5

aiding the enemy

A black person voting Republican is as foolish as a woman who votes Republican-both are voting against their own interests. Anyone citing Allen West and Herman Cain is someone unable to recognize insanity and buffoonery and therefore not to be taken seriously.

4
2

@amgems

4
4

Colors

Yup-and I'm proud to show'em.

1
3

The Republican Party’s

The Republican Party’s alleged “war” against women is fast emerging as a major trope of the 2012 elections. And the charge is largely true: As the GOP has become increasingly conservative, so too has it become increasingly hostile to feminism and insensitive to women’s issues.

But Democrats have not merely been horrified bystanders wringing their hands as this “war” has unfolded. The Democratic Party has actively encouraged the GOP’s descent into antifeminism. And though Democrats have reaped considerable gains from the fallout, their efforts have often ultimately been to the detriment of the country’s women.

As various accounts have pointed out, the Republican Party for most of its history was broadly supportive of women’s rights and aspirations, at any rate by the standards of the times. A Republican Congress endorsed the amendment giving women the vote in 1919, and 80 percent of the state legislatures that approved it were Republican-controlled. The party instituted gender-based affirmative action in 1940 by requiring the Republican National Committee to have one woman and one man from each state, decades in advance of similar reforms by the Democrats. Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, was the only woman senator for 24 years, and became the first woman to run for president. Dwight Eisenhower appointed more women to top posts than John F. Kennedy did.

The GOP’s stance shifted in the 1970s: Republicans played to the backlash against Roe v. Wade and feminism in the later part of that decade, and Ronald Reagan gratified the religious right by abandoning the GOP’s long-held support for the Equal Rights Amendment. The bitter struggles by Republican women to combat their party’s rightward tilt and accompanying opposition to women’s rights have been amply chronicled by the historians Tanya Melich and Catherine Rymph, among others. The latest example was Senator Olympia Snowe, who, in choosing not to seek reelection, pointed out that the GOP’s rigid and intolerant image turns off moderate, pro-business women who believe in limited but effective government.

Snowe’s view is shared by quite a few GOP leaders, including Mitt Romney, who are well aware that the “gender gap” could prove fatal to the party’s electoral chances in the fall elections. But efforts to downplay abortion in favor of economic issues have been undone by those Republicans who organized the infamous all-male panel on birth control and the Virginia proposal for transvaginal ultrasound probes (not to mention Rush Limbaugh’s misogynist rants and Rick Santorum’s momentarily surging candidacy).

It’s worth noting, however, that the Democratic Party has had no interest in trying to cool partisan debate over women’s issues, and every interest in making sure that no significant Republican feminist position emerges. The episode that best illustrates the Democratic approach in this regard was the successful effort to end the political career of Maryland Republican Congresswoman Connie Morella.

Morella, a former English professor and state legislator who also managed to raise nine children, was one of the leading feminists in Congress and among the most liberal House Republicans. She sponsored important legislation on domestic violence and women’s health, while opposing conservatives on gun control, gay rights, conservation, and abortion. She was also one of only six Republicans to vote against authorizing George W. Bush’s military action in Iraq. Her ability to work across the aisle made her a key player in bipartisan reform coalitions. But after Republicans took control of the House in 1994, Morella’s representation of some of Washington D.C.’s most affluent and liberal suburbs made her one of the Democrats’ leading targets. The Democratic-controlled Maryland legislature redrew her district to ensure that, as the state senate president gloated, “If she runs, she loses.”

The Congresswoman nonetheless chose to run for a ninth term in 2002. The Republican Party rallied around her: Bush held a fundraiser for her, the conservative Washington Times endorsed her, and the RINO-hunting Club for Growth chose not to challenge her. The reason Morella was so important for the GOP was not only because she was a consistent vote in favor of free trade, economic growth, and the Bush tax cuts, but because she helped counter the charge that the GOP was anti-woman.

It is to the Republican Party’s credit that it recognized how Morella contributed an important element of diversity in the caucus. But the National Organization for Women endorsed her Democratic opponent, on the grounds that “the ascension of right-wing leadership in the House” made Morella irrelevant. Morella narrowly lost the election and never ran for public office again. Democrats gained a seat, while Republicans lost a vital measure of heterogeneity.

NOW’s actions at that time were intensely partisan, which was perhaps understandable, since most of the organization’s funds and support came from Democrats. But the organization, by turning its back on Morella, in effect declared that feminism was no longer a bipartisan cause and that Republican women almost by definition could not be good feminists. The blowup over the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s defunding of Planned Parenthood earlier this year provided further confirmation that women’s organizations caught up in partisan quarrels will have to side with the Democrats. The unfortunate upshot is that, as feminism ceases to be advocated by at least some people in both parties, it becomes a narrower cause and loses force in American life.

The Democrats, of course, can hardly be expected to resist concentrating their firepower on moderate Republicans from liberal-leaning districts, much as the Republicans went after moderate Blue Dog Democrats from conservative-leaning Southern districts in the last election. This is the Prisoner’s Dilemma of modern American politics, and both parties will be bound to act this way even though they recognize that the marginalization of moderates leaves everyone worse off. So while Democrats are at pains to remind Americans about the dangers of a sexist Republican Party, they will probably remain unaware that their efforts are making that outcome more likely.

3
4

@JMarie

Great article. Once thing though. Your last sentence is a little troubling. The way I see it, the Republicans are big boys and girls who should be able to handle the onslaught of Democratic strategies.

3
4

Obama approval ratings......

The poll conducted by The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement shows two demographic breakdowns for Obama based on Obama's actions, like Stimulus, Healthcare reform, etc, etc, and then finishing with most recent polling. The numbers presented below are the most recent poll numbers (4/22/2012)

First, approval by age: 18-29 59%, 30-49 49%, and 50-64 43%

Next by ethnic groups: African-Americans 85%, Hispanics 65%, Whites 38% http://www.civicyouth.org/president-obamas-job-approval-ratings-by-age-and-race/

The Republicans have reason to be concerned about the lack of support from minorities. And Republican legislators in 9 states have passed voter-id laws. If you consider the demographics in the majority of those states, you should be able to figure out why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws

Currently, those laws are under review by the Justice Department, Currently those laws are being blocked in South Carolina and Texas. Others are under review.

Then there is a different demographic group women:

Women Boost Obama Over Romney in New ABC Poll By Rachel Rose Hartman April 10, 2012

"...Obama led Romney 57 to 38 percent among registered female voters surveyed, the president's largest margin among women to date, according to Langer Research Associates ( pdf), which produced the April 5-8 poll for ABC...." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/women-boost-obama-romney-abc-poll/story?id=16109262#.T5hMrNkqi7s

If I were betting on this race, I wouldn't place my bet on the white horse for the White House.

4
1

@Largardo

I read it and thought the same thing. I see it as a problem with both sides of the isle. The problem with politics is that in an effort to gain political power we usually lose the best negotiators. I applaud those who are elected and stand their ground on the positions that they took which got them elected. Too many of them quickly become professional politicians forgetting their campaign promises at the drop of a hat. In the last decade it has progressively gotten worse and I think the social media outlets have a lot to do with it.

5
4

Have any of you extreme conservatives read Decision Points?

You all should. It is quite interesting when Bush mentions how he took the advice of experts in the field to proceed with the bailouts and other measures- also, those of you who laugh at President Obama when he says that these measures prevented a likely Depression would be interested to know that George W. Bush was told this exact thing and that his decision to go forward with the various measures was based on this. What say you, ex-cons? Certainly, you're not going to ridicule Bush for acting on the advice of those in the know, correct? But then, how does Obama get lambasted for this?

You see, this is what makes our day. Extreme conservatives- regressives- who are so consumed with Obama hate or dislike that they're willing to overlook numerous things on their side and use the most obscene form of cherry-picking to satisfy their political narrative. It is a perverse way to look at things. Don't worry, though- if you win the Presidency, you'll finally get that Christian, extreme conservative, fundamentalist person you've been dreaming of in the White House.

:) :) :) :) :) ;)

4
4

Dorotik you said

"THIS IS FROM A SOURCE THAT I GOOGLED- rather than attack the source- as it may very well be the Huffington Post or ThinkProgress- how about responding to the information? Did extreme disparities in wealth lead to these 2 environments (Depression and Recession). What say you, Regressives???

This *regressive* says.. show me the source.

4
4

Dorotik you said

"Don't worry, though- if you win the Presidency, you'll finally get that Christian, extreme conservative, fundamentalist person you've been dreaming of in the White House"

Romney is by no means or any measure an extreme conservative.

4
4

Oblivious you noted Obama's approval rating

Gallup is noting a very strong drop in youth support which was key in his election.

By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published April 24, 2012 FoxNews.com

:As he rolls out, he finds his Gallup approval rating among voters under 30 running 10 points behind his 2008 election performance.

Much worse, though, is the fact that voter enthusiasm for this group has cratered. In February, Gallup found voter enthusiasm for the under 30 set down 28 points to 48 percent as compared to the same point in 2008. Obama will still win the youth vote, but it looks like he is unlikely to do so by the massive margins of 2008. But the more serious concern is that youth turnout may shrink and that these young voters won’t be foot soldiers knocking on doors and leaning on their parents and grandparents to vote for that cool, transformative guy"

2
4

@Angela uh....

Angela, the information source I reported on was from a poll taken April 22, 2012.

February data is a little stale don't you think?

As of April 24, Gallup shows Obama leading by 6 points........http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Back to Top