Injustice of Injustice

I could just as easily call it Injustice of Social Justice, but that might be too ironic. Though it is pretty much the same thing.

It is my rantzilla for the week. Why have we allowed the left, or anyone, to hijack the word injustice? I’m not sure but it is clear they have. They also redefine social justice.

First, I believe injustice is a problem too. As just a few examples: I think injustice is protests turning violent, destroying property or hurting people; and cop killing. They certainly are not justice. Shutting down highways is injustice; shutting down government for vengeance because you lost the election is injustice; opening a counterintelligence investigation on a political opponent because he threatens your election is injustice; voter fraud or trying to rig elections is injustice; labeling people Nazis because they don’t agree with you is an injustice; I believe taking a knee to disrespect the Anthem or the flag is injustice. I think fighting for the right to abortion on demand is injustice. Labeling abortion safe is an injustice. Finally, defending the indefensible is injustice.

I see lawlessness as injustice – not as some puritanical civil disobedience redefined as social justice. And many of those things could be called immoral too. Breaking the law is injustice. I don’t accept some of the common, trivial interpretations as injustice. Modern definitions of the Left would say anything is injustice that doesn’t agree with their agenda. Injustice, as the Left uses it, is politically charged — like everything else they touch.

If this is what they consider winning, what is losing?

On the other hand, I also believe in social justice. I think government has a moral obligation in the law. I think a deterrent is part of the motivation for a law. I don’t think social justice gives you some right to commit injustice. I don’t think sensing an injustice gives you the sovereign right to break the peace, or disrupt another innocent person because you have a grievance. I think self-governing is a form of social justice. Free markets and economics are a kind of social justice. Humanitarian activism can be a type of social justice.

Social justice, to the left, is the kind of thing that can lead a person to believe they have the right to set off bombs to kill innocent people because they think government is acting immorally. Or to gun down Republicans on a ball field because they are political enemies. That is how the left sees social justice – you define it. And if you happen to be in the way of their social justice, you are not supposed to be offended if you are injured or someone is killed in their path to social justice. That’s the breaks.

But I do feel very offended.

I am offended by an illegal alien who was deported 5 times only to come back again and kill a fellow citizen. I am offended by lawlessness. I don’t believe “social justice” should be encouraging more lawlessness. I don not believe social justice is preventing hundreds of people to see a ball game, or keeping people from a store or restaurant. I do not think publishing people’s phone numbers to harass them is an act of social justice. A case can be made it is injustice. I don’t believe breaking the law, particularly when it hurts someone or destroys their property or livelihood, can be spun as “social justice.”

But in the words of the left, their slogan is no justice no peace.” Do you notice the implication buried in that? You shall not have peace as long as I have a grievance. Because I feel a grievance, I have the right to do whatever I want including to disturb the peace – and brand it social justice. They feel they have a moral ground that whenever they claim or perceive something unjust, then they have a right to commit injustice.

I read a call to action from a Bishop. It encouraged people to ‘do something’ in view of separated children on the border. Whatever you are motivated personally to do, in the name of the children, is acceptable. That usually means good deeds. But what if someone’s idea of social justice is revenge? What if it is civil disobedience? It does not say. (I’m not saying all civil disobedience is wrong. The reason it is done is a determining factor.)

Those church clergy also want you to send money to a legal fund to help parents or children. Why, to defend them for breaking the law? But they need our help. What are we helping? If you are doing that, are you encouraging more of that behavior, more lawlessness? At what point do you become complicit in their behavior? What about the consequences of your social actions; are you responsible for the consequences?

Every time I hear no justice no peace, I cringe. Selfishness seems like their real motivation. Now there are people who feel as long as they are not content, nor should you be. In other words: you have no rights as long as I /we claim to be victims.

Is that their idea of social justice? Yes. Social justice is all about getting what one wants. But the dirty little secret is the Left can never be satisfied. That is their whole game plan, not being satisfied and always claiming to be a grieved victim.

Here is my other problem. I mentioned different ways I am offended. Those are serious things I think justifiable. But when I hear the left complain about being offended, often they are outraged by things conservatives say. That is enough to send them over the cliff. Think about the contrast.

Roseanne said something on Twitter, wham, she loses her top-rated TV show. Someone on Fox says something they don’t like, even if true, and they demand a list of his/her sponsors to get the person off the air. See how this really works? Your freedom of speech is the chief offense here. Shutting down that freedom is their chief objective. You would think freedom of speech would be a cause worth defending. Peter Fonda says something outrageous on Twitter and it is just outrageous, but no consequences. The left will defend that as freedom.

I have legitimate social concerns and they trivialize being victimized to what someone says or thinks about them. Thought crimes. Then they use the cover and camouflage of words like “injustices” and Social Justice to disguise what they are doing. Social Justice today is defined by the Left and normally means what they want it to mean.

What does Social Justice mean? According to Heritage: (see)

Abstract: For its proponents, “social justice” is usually undefined. Originally a Catholic term, first used about 1840 for a new kind of virtue (or habit) necessary for post-agrarian societies, the term has been bent by secular “progressive” thinkers to mean uniform state distribution of society’s advantages and disadvantages. Social justice is really the capacity to organize with others to accomplish ends that benefit the whole community. If people are to live free of state control, they must possess this new virtue of cooperation and association. This is one of the great skills of Americans and, ultimately, the best defense against statism.

I know, some sticklers for definitions would quibble with my loose use of social justice. My conscience could prevent posting this but I had to. You can decide. The concept of social justice is being refashioned and redefined almost weekly to suit the Left. It is what they make it. As Liberals are wont to do, they often take something and twist or redefine it to fit their objective — their agenda. Is it any wonder it appears different from what it once was, into a political tool? It is very much about economics today. The left’s. Nazifying large swaths of political enemies becomes social justice.

As much of our current culture, social justice escalated its evolution in the 60’s, assisted by some clergy, into a Marxism meld. The influence remains. Our definition became the problem. But words like “Social Justice warrior” do not convince me of pure motivations.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Green grass and high tides: commencement du jour

With all the yap on the airwaves about commencement addresses, I thought it was time to tackle one of these speechified manifestos myself. So bear with me.

Not that conservatives usually get to speak at such an event. You know the numbers. If so, maybe it should go something like this. First, context is important: remember that they don’t really care what you say, it’s their day. But you the speaker must slice through those biases, however you can, without tempering your message. Enough as been said already on lofty “finer points” of ed-U-K-shun, so stuff that in the sock drawer. It isn’t your mom and pop’s type education we’re talking about now. Onward.

Hit a couple high points, and hit a few low ones, then sum it up as the world is your oyster and make lemonade out of lemons. Well, scratch that outline and just go for it.

I’d like to talk to you on this special day, and thank you for inviting me. Though it wasn’t so much an invitation as a booking arrangement. I just happened to be the one available.

While the fleeting idea of grand accomplishment is still thick in the air, I would like to address that. But it requires a little history or background. I’m not going to explain details of events, if you don’t know what they are you can Google it as I talk. I didn’t get paid a professor’s salary to come here and I don’t have tenure. So….

You may have the feeling right now that you have achieved a certain level, or reached some nirvana status. Whether or not that is on your way to higher aspirations or it is the height of your achievement is all open for debate.

Knowledge is power, education is achievement, and all that stuff hangs like a cloud over campuses like this. Academic accomplishment is still something to be proud of. (enjoy it while you can)

However, what I hope to do is remind you of just a few events. Of course you don’t remember but have you heard of Enron? Look it up if not. They were not bottom feeders, pardon the pun. Those involved in the scandal were educated, smart, accomplished people. There was the savings and loan(S & L) scandal. Bankers, educated, and smart people.

How about Nixon’s administration? You know all those people in the Watergate scandal – you don’t have to know their names — who were indicted or part of it were educated, intelligent people, lawyers and advisers. You might remember some of the Clintons’ scandals. Right, they don’t use that word scandal anymore because it’s a pejorative. That aside, remember those incidents called right-wing conspiracies that were always hovering around the Clintons and the White House? Let’s call them controversies just to be kind. Whatever you heard, there were some smart people in them. You don’t have to know all the details — which would require a four year course — to know they had intelligent and educated people in their circle.

You probably know about some media personalities in mainstream media. They are educated people, too, with degrees and such. Not without flaw, error or controversy.

That collective sampling of history sort of tells us something, doesn’t it? They can all be educated, very intelligent people but they make mistakes too. Sure, they aren’t perfect and none of us are. The lesson of all those things is simple.

So if you thought education was a status of achievement that would prevent you from screwing up, you are mistaken. If you thought education was your exemption ticket from scandal or problems, you were wrong. If you thought your education would diminish the chances of screwing up or even failing, you would be wrong.

Actually, your chances of finding yourself in a bad situation may have gone up with that new degree. It certainly will not save you from trouble. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you that you are not immune because of your education or intelligence.

Some very intelligent and educated people created some pretty huge problems. Their education did not save them from corruption or scandal, and probably wouldn’t save you. Many good, successful people were also intelligent and educated.

If you studied anything on ethics, you know there are choices you will be asked to make. Sometimes it might be either or; sometimes it might be picking both at the same time; you may be forced to choose. You might have to decide if you really want that abortion you were told was your “right”? You might have to decide if that building the crowd broke all the windows in should be looted? You might have to decide whether or not you will be a witness to that assault or robbery you just saw? You may have to decide on a given day if you are going to be a spectator or intervene on behalf of a victim in the making? You might have to decide if what your boss told you to do is ethical? You might decide if money or gifts are really bribes? Or not; but you will have to make some choices.

And you will have to decide if you are going to vote, then whom you vote for? No choice is still a choice. You will have to determine if those in power really do speak for you or they are taking people’s votes for granted. You may be called on, at some point, to make a decision between the profitable thing and the right thing to do? You may also have to decide when enough is really enough? I nor anyone else can tell you what choices to make.

We can tell you or encourage you to make the right one but the decision is yours. So when you make the right choice a bell doesn’t go off, or a buzzer doesn’t sound when you make the wrong one. Sometimes you may not even know if it was the right decision, only that you made one. Sometime you might not be aware you made a choice. Or sometime you may think you really have no choice.

No one can give you the answers; we can’t even tell you the questions. We can tell you to make the right decision. Then own that decision. Don’t blame someone else, or justify it by some excuse. Just admit it was yours to make and live with your decision. You made a choice when you came here. Now live with that choice.

Why such concern about feeling a nirvana or sense of immunity to problems? Unchecked it can lead one right into false confidence. That concern is validated for a reason.

You have probably been warned about greed or heard it blamed as an enemy of society and social justice. CS Lewis in The Great Sin describes the subject this way:

“What is it that makes a man with 10,000 pounds a year anxious to get 20,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. 10,000 pounds will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride – the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power.

For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing makes a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.”

Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goeth before destruction: and the spirit is lifted up before a fall.”

RightRing | Bullright

Speak loudly and carry a big threat

That should be the new motto for the Marxist, militant left.

Michele takes to the campuses to exact her vengeance on America — structural racism in particular, since that is the left’s new code word no matter who is in office.

And in the face of all of that clamor, you might have an overwhelming instinct to just run the other way as fast as you can. You might be tempted to just recreate what you had here at Oberlin -– to find a community of like-minded folks and work with them on causes you care about, and just tune out all of the noise. And that’s completely understandable. In fact, I sometimes have that instinct myself — run! (Laughter.)

But today, graduates, I want to urge you to do just the opposite. Today, I want to suggest that if you truly wish to carry on the Oberlin legacy of service and social justice, then you need to run to, and not away from, the noise. (Applause.) Today, I want to urge you to actively seek out the most contentious, polarized, gridlocked places you can find. Because so often, throughout our history, those have been the places where progress really happens –- the places where minds are changed, lives transformed, where our great American story unfolds.

Then came the lecture on social justice (their definition) and the get out to vote message. Is that all they care about: politics, elections, and political power? Some “struggle” that is.

So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable. Follow what’s happening in your city hall, your statehouse, Washington, D.C. Better yet, run for office yourself. Get in there. Shake things up. Don’t be afraid. (Applause.) And get out and vote in every election -– not just the big national ones that get all the attention, but every single election. Make sure the folks who represent you share your values and aspirations.”

Raw raw sis boom bah!
Hold them accountable? Unless you elect Hillary Clinton, then ignore accountability just like now. And while she’s running, give her a big wet-kiss pass.

If Michele was pounding the bigotry of racism, social justice, and revolution; then Obama is pounding the Global Warming propaganda just as arrogantly hard to Coast Guard grads.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

“You are part of the first generation of officers to begin your service in a world where the effects of climate change are so clearly upon us. Climate change will shape how every one of our services plan, operate, train, equip, and protect their infrastructure, today and for the long-term.”

So let me combine Obama’s cliff notes for the military. Do not talk about or mention Christianity or Jesus. That gets you in big trouble. Do put faith in the religion of global warming. Swear on the altar of climate change, talk about it all the time. Mission #1.

 

Well, Obama had already done his own rage routine earlier.

Luther, Obama’s anger translator:

HOLD ON TO YOUR LILY-WHITE BUTTS !!!

Oh don’t worry, Barry, we will… we are! (he couldn’t even say it himself)

The economic activism of the Left

Two aspects of liberal activism share a common theme.

The Left and the gay movement boycott your business if they don’t like your views or ideas. Or they want to force you to do business, while giving you the business.

Here we have progressives, Liberals, Democrats or what ever you want to call them, with their favorite method of economic activism. Striking at the heart of businesses has long been a target of opportunity for the Left.

Boycotting places like Chick-fil-A was their standard m/o when a company or owner did something, or had a social position, they did not like. Yes, it turned into a boon when people countered by taking business to them in droves. It was a reverse activism the Left despised. So they painted anyone who patronized the business into bigots.

Remember how they boycotted Dr Laura and her sponsors? Eventually she gave up. Notice all the times they targeted businesses and sponsors of shows like Dr Laura’s they didn’t like. The Left loves a good boycott to get their collective juices going. They don’t have to know all the details. But of course they don’t stop with boycotts, they actively protest or march against the establishments. The goal is to hurt or destroy it.

Then there was Occupy Wall Street cranking their strategy up a few notches — as only the left can. That just showed how they can roll all their ugly activism into one and still have pols and government pandering to their agenda — whatever that was, and it’s a moving goalpost.(capitalism, big banks, big business, big-government, wages or whatever)

Then there is their beloved crown jewel, the BDS movement (haters inc.), against Israel. Anyone who does business or buys and sells with Israel deserves to be on the list. Anything tied to Israel in some way gets on that enemy list. That is on top of their ordinary protests against Israel. Fuel it with plenty of anti-Semitism. Israel is grounds for protest; or divestment of anything related to Israel. They call on governments and campuses to take up that banner. They call on countries and the UN to slap sanctions on Israel. The reason becomes secondary to the actual movement, it doesn’t really matter. In effect, they want a world united against Israel. No, it doesn’t matter who is a party to the movement or what they’ve done. Anyone can and should join, according to the organizers.

The BDS movement offers a glimpse into the scope of their activism. Anything goes: board a ship or break the law, it doesn’t matter. All that matters is hatred of Israel. It brings on board some of the worst of the worst offenders in human rights. It unites them all — the Left, Muslim Brotherhood, dictators,terrorists, academia, unions — under the same banner on a platform of hatred. Rally the troops. The same formula on a smaller scale plays out on all sorts of the Left’s favorite social issues. Again, the political movement matters even more than the justification or rationale. Politics rules.

The civil rights activists operate in the same way, from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Hollywood celebs engaging in the same politics. Blacklisting people, no problem. Boycotting or running them out of business. Shaking down corporations for money or cronyism. Now the gay agenda, a limb of the Left, engaging their sexual agenda.’ Don’t like a policy or something of a business? This is the means to whatever ends you desire.

Now up pops another tactic: force businesses or people to do business in ways they don’t want. The polar opposite of boycotts. Force businesses into agreements or relationships because activists can. Then use the Left’s staple of government force, against their will, as the enforcer. They always love to have government coercion working on their behalf. The ultimate goal of the Left is having government enforcement. Think of it as the 60s radicals now having government serve their interests.

Use it under the banner of: environmentalism, the green agenda, illegal immigration, social justice, gun control, spending programs, energy, oil and resources development, same sex marriage and gay agenda, abortion, crime and justice, class warfare, wages, union activism, or anti-Christian agenda.

So they pick out those they choose to offend into submission under government’s hand. Morals and principles are replaced by political agenda. Politics trumps all. Now when Harry Reid tells a big lie from the floor of the Senate, it is justified if his enemy loses. People refer to this as “the ends justify the means” but it is worse than that. It is a politics at any cost ideology.(the very definition of an ideologue)

This is their economic terrorism model. Just that it strives to have government run interference for their political agenda. Any wonder we see a politicized bureaucracy and hyper-partisanship? That is by design, after all, and exactly what they want. They don’t want a neutral or Apolitical government, they want it radicalized just like under Obama. It could be the closest thing yet to a utopian model.

You already knew that but it doesn’t hurt to keep pointing it out. They want government to be their big brother, the thug, the enforcer… the Cosa Nostra. They don’t want officials to take an oath, they want them to vow to government’s omerta and punish whistleblowers. (break their kneecaps) It all means whatever their political agenda is at the time. And keep those government wheels well-greased with plenty of lobbying and activism — Organize for Activism and Move On dot ug. Petitions and perpetual grievance keep it running smoothly. (smooth in radical terms)

So activists want to force a business they don’t like to do business against its will, or activists will boycott and ruin the business. Make sense? Hey.hey, ho, ho…

RightRing | Bullright

Protestors, take a deep breath

Maybe put on a little Floyd, like this classic from Dark Side of the Moon: “Breathe“.

Instead of “I can’t breathe,” how about you just breathe and “choose your own ground”.

Then get a life, because you are screwing up everyone else’s. Enough is enough, you made your point. Well, not really but you did make a mess.

That’s right, in the name of making your grievance, much of the country is outraged by your grief. Your roadblocks and your “peaceful” riots don’t quench your thirst for action. But this you call social justice.

Others are collateral damage to your demands, hostages to your civil rights mantra. Your right is to inconvenience everyone else. Your right is hijacking anyone else’s. Protestors of abuse creating victims everywhere you go, while claiming to be victims.

So sit down, take another breath and listen to “Us and Them“:

Down and out
It can’t be helped but there’s a lot of it about.
With, without.
And who’ll deny it’s what the fighting’s all about?

Still other people will say:

“Out of the way, it’s a busy day
I’ve got things on my mind.”

But we have rights, too, though they must be second to yours. Ours are contingent on your rights to grievance, deeming us all victims of your relevance.

It’s just another brick in the wall, isn’t it? Just another march of scorn to warn us of your pending doom. The rest of us have to pay for your say, it must be the social justice way.

RightRing | Bullright

Ferguson store with revolving door

Ferguson Market and Liquor then – August after looting

Ferguson Market & Liquor — 9:55 pm on 11/24 after announcement:

Ferguson Market and Liquor

The store Brown robbed the day of his death, robbed in August rioting, and among first to be looted on 11/24. The store that keeps on giving. Despite being partly boarded up with ‘hands-up’ signs, they lined up to have a go at the loot. Didn’t burn that one down.

See CNN video Breitbart.

The store that keeps on giving..and giving. Mike Brown protestors keep on taking.

RightRing | Bullright

Is anybody out there?

Dear diary,

Well, I’m writing to you today to tell you how pissed off I am….. er how depressed and pissed off I am. Now I don’t mean to bring you down — bad enough you don’t have a choice on listening. Sorry I can’t be more upbeat for you. Some friend I am.

But hey, since you are a captive audience I thought I’d let it rip. I know most people probably complain about last night’s dinner, or that last electric bill, or that traffic jam on the way home from work after they stopped off to buy their Chunky Monkey ice cream. I kind of wish I had those problems.

You probably don’t know what its like to talk to someone for 3 minutes until you realize they don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, much less care. Or when you mention some current event only to realize they don’t have a clue about it, so you end up being the bearer of bad news. Then you feel guilty for messing up their otherwise beautiful day. So they blame you, the messenger! No, you wouldn’t know about that, would you?

We have a pretender in the White House but we are surrounded by a circle of truth-challengd activists who actually do his/their bidding. You probably saw my sock puppet criticism. A nation of sock puppets. Those of us with some sanity left are just livid at what they have done to our Republic. It was by no means perfect before but what they have done defies reasoning. Yet we are considered the crazy ones, extremists, the problem, the wackos, the trouble makers, the nut-jobs. Funny how they can pull that off credibly.

So that is the situation here, not very comforting. That’s been the condition for the last six years. The future is no less bleak. Now, with only 2 years left in this regime, they are doing their damnedest to make sure we have no more choice in our situation then than we have at present. Not very encouraging, I know.

Did I forget to mention, they want to destroy any sense of individuality at the voting booth? They have people voting on their skin color, or the ethnicity, or their sexuality, or their income, even reproductive organs. But anyone else who refuses to be pigeon-holed is marginalized as a bigot, extremist, or a hater. And Christians, well, if they don’t fit the mold of the “liberal” orthodoxy and the emerging church, they are discarded as heretics.

On a positive note, if there is one, I’m starting to see more and more people awakened to all the political failures. So far its more of an elephant in the room, but people cannot put their finger on what the nasty smell is yet. They seem to think it must have always been there… just that they haven’t noticed it before.

Surprisingly enough, Islam and Muslims have hijacked our political system and public debate in the country. Meanwhile, more people are being murdered around the world for their Christian faith in the name of Islam. Seems they never learned anything from Jefferson. In fact, they just announced a new caliphate, and even that did not cause much of a reaction in many places, and others rushed to join. I guess they figure its a new social networking tool. ( #hashtag – like us on facebook)

Even as bad, this political caliphate in the US has everyone believing energy is some kind of evil. Anything involving energy has to be run through a P/C decoder in order to approve it. And elsewhere, we’ve even found hospitals that were burning aborted babies for fuel.(at least we think they were aborted) They didn’t appreciate that being exposed. I don’t know if they considered it green or not? Though it could be Sharia compliant, but we’re still waiting for word on that.

The new trend is social justice. It seems that riots in the streets and violence to property is the definition of social justice. There sure is a lot of it being meted out. I haven’t seen so much justice since the 60’s. Well, I don’t want to bring you down, but this sure is not the paradise they claimed it would be. We all waited to see “hope and change” only to hope it changes. It’s not very hop-y if you ask me, but they don’t so I don’t tell them.

I guess I have to close now to leave plenty of time for prayer. These days there is a whole lot to pray about, for, and relief from. Mostly though let’s just pray we can fix the damage being done — with only divine help from above because our attempts aren’t cutting it.

I’ll keep you posted. Maybe I can bring you a little positive news next time. I know you could use some too.

Until then, Love and Blessings… ’cause the world isn’t handing out those.

RightRing | Bullright

Gruesome Gosnell summary

I have posted several times about gruesome Gosnell and his Philly butcher shop. There are a few more articles Pepperhawk Farm forwarded that really deserve a look. So I’ll post them with minimal editorializing. Well, I said minimal, that’s open for interpretation. The subject stirs me to the core.

Now we’re hearing the judge threw out counts against him as it shifted to the defense this week. I can’t imagine the real reason, as if it wasn’t proved they were alive, when Gosnell’s whole pupose to to keep his conspiracy of death behind the filthy walls of his clinic. And he put a lot of effort into that. Some of the ‘lowlights’ are:

Death Doc Kermit Gosnell’s Silent Co-Conspirators

Michelle Malkin

Planned Parenthood now says it’s “appalled” by the Philadelphia house of horrors run by accused serial baby-killer and pregnant-mom murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Bull.

The appalling inaction of the nation’s largest abortion provider, along with countless other clinics and “pro-choice” groups in the know, speaks far louder than their belatedly self-serving words.
/…
As I first noted in my column and on my blog when the scissors-wielding sadist was arrested in January 2011, the murders committed under the banner of “choice” were ignored for four decades by abortion advocates. The Philadelphia grand jury report, now amplified by trial testimony, outlined the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming viable babies. The panel concluded that the “vast majority of the babies he aborted” were more than 24 weeks old.

Gosnell joked that one murdered baby was so big, the child “could walk around with me.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/04/19/death-doc-kermit-gosnells-silent-coconspirators-n1572425

How to Murder the Innocent, Defenseless, and Undefended—and Make Big Bucks Doing It!

By Jim ONeill CFP
Monday, April 15, 2013 (excerpts)

As we near the end of this article I might mention that the Philadelphia D.A. estimates that Dr. Gosnell made between $10,000 to $15,000 a day from his abortion mill (that does not include the money he made from the illegal sale of prescription drugs, which was considerable, but does not concern us here). And before anyone leaps to his defense as a “champion of women’s rights,” I suggest you look over the D.A.‘s report in that regard. For example:

“One woman…was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus. Relatives who came to pick her up were refused entry into the building; they had to threaten to call the police. They eventually found her inside, bleeding and incoherent, and transported her to the hospital, where doctors had to remove almost half a foot of her intestines.” — [**THAT should prevent anyone from ever using the prefix Doctor on Gosnell ]
/…
I will conclude with a sobering thought. The police originally raided Dr. Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” because he was overprescribing Oxycontin—not because he was murdering infants. One wonders how many other “Dr. Gosnell’s” there are spread across the country, flying under the radar—how many other “Houses of Horror” funded by our taxpayer dollars?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54458

Let’s set the stage

Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story

The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy.

Conor Friedersdorf – The Atlantic
Apr 12 2013

On February 18, 2010, the FBI raided the “Women’s Medical Society,” entering its offices about 8:30 p.m. Agents expected to find evidence that it was illegally selling prescription drugs. On entering, they quickly realized something else was amiss.

In the grand jury report’s telling, “There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff.” Authorities had also learned about the patient that died at the facility several months prior.

Read at: The Atlantic.com

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Is Cleared on Some Counts

By JON HURDLE-NYT
Published: April 23, 2013

PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday threw out three of seven murder charges against a Philadelphia doctor charged with killing viable fetuses while performing abortions.

The judge, Jeffrey P. Minehart of Common Pleas Court here, granted motions for acquittal on the charges against the physician, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who ran the Women’s Medical Center, a West Philadelphia abortion clinic.

Judge Minehart also granted a motion for acquittal in five charges of abuse of corpse against Dr. Gosnell, who according to prosecutors killed fetuses that were alive after they were aborted by plunging scissors into their necks. Dr. Gosnell, 72, was also acquitted on one charge of infanticide.

The judge gave no reason for his decision, which came on the fifth week of the trial and preceded the start of defense arguments, which had been scheduled to begin on Tuesday afternoon but are now expected to start Wednesday.

MSNBC Finally Covers Gosnell Trial in Primetime Five Weeks After it Began

By Noel Sheppard | April 24, 2013 |

The murder trial of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell began on March 18.

On April 23, more than five weeks after it started, the folks at the so-called “news network” MSNBC decided it was time they reported it in primetime.

Hardball‘s Chris Matthews surprisingly ended the blackout Tuesday:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: In Philadelphia right now, the trial of an abortion doctor charged with the murder of babies the prosecutors say were born alive is generating national headlines. Of course, it was page one of today’s USA Today with the headline “Gruesome Testimony Renews Debate Over Abortion.”

Well, Im not sure about that, but it is gruesome testimony. A grand jury report released in 2011 called the clinic a house of horrors. But the bottom line remains this is a murder case. Let’s keep our heads around that.

Originally, Dr. Kermit Goswell — or Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder for killing babies that were allegedly alive, born alive and viable. Well, today, a judge threw out three of the seven murder charges. The judge did not explain his reasoning. But reports have indicated he did not hear sufficient evidence that the three babies he took out were actually born viable and then killed.

“Well, I’m not sure about that.”

What Matthews obviously meant was that he’s not sure this renews debate over abortion. Of course, that’s why his network and virtually all of the liberal media chose to boycott this story because they were indeed afraid it would renew the debate.

Also of note was MSNBC ending its primetime blackout on the day the judge reduced the charges on Gosnell. Makes you think that if he’s found innocent the media will gleefully report that.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/04/24/msnbc-finally-covers-gosnell-trial-five-weeks-after-it-began#ixzz2RQwEwtIK

Gruesome testimony renews debate over abortion

Rick Hampson, USA TODAY April 22, 2013

A third witness recalled how, as ordered, she used surgical scissors to snip the spine of an aborted fetus she’d found in a toilet, its arm still moving. “I did it once, and I didn’t do it again,” she said. “…it gave me the creeps.”

The creeps are an occupational hazard for jurors in the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, accused of running a clinic where seven babies were allegedly killed after botched abortions and an adult patient was given a fatal overdose of Demerol.

Abortion opponents hope that the horrifying crimes attributed to this one defendant can shift the balance of power in an abortion debate that’s been deadlocked for decades.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/22/gosnell-abortion-trial/2100103/

Gosnell Defense rests in Philidelphia Abortion Case

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A Philadelphia abortion provider won’t testify or call witnesses at his capital murder trial, leaving jurors to weigh five weeks of prosecution evidence.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is charged with killing four babies allegedly born alive at a clinic that authorities have described as filthy. He is also charged in the 2009 overdose death of a 41-year-old refugee who died just months after coming to the U.S.

Gosnell’s defense rested Wednesday without calling a witness. The jury is expected to hear closing arguments on Monday.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/24/abortion-philadelphia-gosnell/2110857/

H/T to Pepperhawk for three of the articles.

Update on Gosnell trial

Curtain call…Where is justice for the countless victims, or human interest reporting?

Where are all the media  talking heads, and rag-tag pundits with talking points in tow? Gone, only crickets. There has been a professional hitman butcher taken off the streets of Philadelphia, and a total lack of outcry from media. The “collective conscience” sighs.

The Washington Examiner had a good article on just that subject. Some media claimed it is a local issue, which they don’t cover. Huh? They are kidding, aren’t they? The list goes on.

“This fact points us to the most likely reason the mainstream media ignored the story as long as possible: The Gosnell story has an inherent pro-life bias, because the Gosnell story leads us to discussing abortion procedures.

When you discuss the act of aborting — even perfectly legal abortions — you have to discuss the blood, the scalpels, the scissors. You might use terms like “dilation and extraction” or “dilation and curettage.” Think through those terms (“curettage” is defined as “a surgical scraping or cleaning”) and recall that what is being extracted or scraped has a beating heart.

Discussing Gosnell threatens to start a discussion on abortion procedures — and that’s not good for anyone in the abortion industry.”

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-abortionists-case-raises-troubling-questions/article/2527117

What did they do so far? Well they ignored the details and the entire case against the Butcher of Philadelphia — the most important part. No mention from politicians, or speeches on the floor, or feigned outrage from the Chameleon-in-Chief. The entire case against him has been practically erased from public dialogue.

Even the conservative media is fairly quiet. So, no play-by-play of the daily events in MSM from the court room. What about the bloody knife in OJ’s case? This doctor’s instruments are stained in thirty years of bloody murder. What a record. We don’t know how many innocent babes died at his hands. But babies’ feet adorned his office like souvenirs.

Did media care whether all those others were “local” incidents? Treyvon Martin — the name that echoes from the Capitol?

Where is the outrage? Searching for the next politically correct event, that’s where. Spoiling for another fight over gun-control, that’s where. Looking for an “immigration bill”. Demanding action for same-sex marriage, that’s where.

So the prosecution rests its case.(sigh of relief from MSM) Next is the defense. Now, if they cover it at all, they could splash some of the defense’s case in the news — just to fill that news cycle. They might play up his defense. They can try to revise facts after the trial. But so far, no grandiose presidential statements about Gosnell. No sympathy for victims.

Whatever the Reason, There’s No Excuse for Media Ignoring Kermit Gosnell Trial

“Under pressure from pro-life websites and writers, several national news outlets have reluctantly began covering the trial of ghastly abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Beyond that, a handful of liberal media figures are finally beginning to ask the important question of why such a sensational trial–if it bleeds, it supposedly leads–received almost no attention whatsoever in the national press.”

They can try to cover some of the defense portion, until inconvenient anyway. That is if there is anything to mitigate the Butcher of Phily…. you know, the “local” non-story.

What are they afraid of, the truth?

CITY PROSECUTORS rested their case against abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell on Thursday after calling to the witness stand a former employee who said she saw the doctor and his employees kill babies that were born alive.Kareema Cross, 28, said she was so appalled by Gosnell’s ghoulish practices and the rundown condition of his West Philadelphia clinic that she began taking pictures of the facility and eventually reported him to the federal authorities.
/….
In Pennsylvania, it is illegal to abort a fetus after the 24th week of pregnancy.
/…
Cross conceded that Gosnell often yelled at her as if he were her father, told her to get an abortion when she became pregnant and tried to prevent her from getting unemployment benefits when she went on maternity leave.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130419_Prosecution_rest_in_Kermit_Gosnell_murder_trial.html
Related: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/gosnell-the-gory-butcher-on-trial/

Gosnell the Gory Butcher on trial

Kermit Gosnell, Abortion Doctor, Enters 5th Week Of Murder Trial; More Gruesome Details Revealed

PHILADELPHIA — The murder trial of a Philadelphia [late-term] abortion provider enters its fifth week Monday…

Authorities allege the babies were killed using scissors.

And unlicensed doctor Stephen Massof testified that Gosnell taught him to cut the necks of babies after they were born to ensure the babies died. He has pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree murder.

The raid was prompted by Gosnell’s high-volume practice writing prescriptions for painkillers, allegedly to addicts and drug dealers.

Authorities said they found dozens of fetuses in refrigerators at Gosnell’s clinic during the raid, along with rows of severed feet.

http://main.aol.com/2013/04/15/kermit-gosnell-abortion-doctor-trial-5th-week_n_3085240.html?1366040750&icid=maing-grid7%7Caim%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D298346

We do not hear much about charges for painkillers. But that is what led to this case. He literally made a fortune from killing babies, and doling out painkillers. What is ethical at all about Gosnell? Not a thing.

Is society more intolerant of painkiller abuse than abortions?

So hardened and seared was his conscience that he trained someone to cut babies’ necks to make sure he killed them. Now he fights for his own life in court.

Some “choice”? This was Philadelphia freedom run amuck. People will “fight” to preserve that “right”? Go figure.

No lack of politicking from pulpits

Can’t get no, can’t get no… satisfaction … no, no, no. [part 1]

I never imagined saying this, but our problem today does not stem from a lack of taking on political issues from the pulpit. No. Wait; hold the tomatoes! It’s just that when they do mention anything related to politics, it is mostly a sanitized politically correct view. I know that is not every church or pulpit. Some pastors treat social issues equally serious.

But many pastors and clergy who will not talk about something in any way related to politics often do find their voice, but on other political matters. One could make a list: social justice, peace, being thy brother’s keeper, not judging others, not using certain outdated labels that may sound offensive, tolerance, and so on. So it is just so-called hot button issues they will not talk about – i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. Is that what we are called to do, effectively “screen” our speech? And to do it for political correctness?

Pastors to Endorse Candidates from the Pulpit on Sunday by Albert Milliron

(Note: keep in mind that I had written this a while ago, over a year, as the elections were still heating up)

I recently got schooled from the pulpit about vocal support and candidate endorsements. The sermon was basically we should “be very cautious about endorsing” in politics. (one notable Texas pastor’s endorsement of Perry was Exhibit A) You can read into that, ‘you ought to refrain from publicly endorsing politics or candidates’. You would be reading my mind too. The basis was probably meant as endorsing from the pulpit but there it was in broad daylight, an anti-activism type message to Christians.

It is far deeper than just candidate endorsements of clergy from the pulpit, the same principle is then applied to all politics and all of us. Message: stay clear of politics. You also might correctly assume the basis for all this was ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’. The actual passage and I’ll give various scriptures:

Mark 12:15-17
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Matt 17:24-27
Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

This is usually the reference used

Matt 22:17-21
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Of course, many use that latter exchange to broadly lecture us to “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Thus, since this politics stuff is rendered Caesar’s turf now, it all therefore belongs to him. “Go back to your prayer closet, Christians.” The truth is our life and rights come from God. With that we have some responsibility. We are accountable to God. And we are responsible for our leadership, and choices.

Something similar may unfold in the Middle East, in countries where people are crawling out from under brutal dictators. We might sympathize with them but they could be headed down a tough road – do they know it? That is, if as they say claims are true that they strive for democracy. Whether that is really the case or not, let us accept that premise for now. They might discover the ideal is not as simple as it sounds. They will share some responsibility for their democracy at some point. Then, they cannot just blame a tyrant and authorities for the results. They will have to accept some blame for problems and consequences, or reap credit when things go well. So they might have a few surprises ahead, such as accountability. It will not be easy for those who have not experienced “freedom” before. Providing they get that far … and that is their goal.

We have the example of Jesus crucifixion. Remember Pilate washed his hands of the deed, or tried to, in as much as the event was already in process. He wanted to escape responsibility for Jesus’ death. Though we still associate Pilate with Jesus’ crucifixion. In Acts, the apostles made it known to political elites that they had a shared responsibility for His death. That was not a convenient message they wanted to hear, and it did not tickle their ears. In fact, they wanted to shut down the apostles for that reason. It made them look bad. Some people suggest “…but we must keep clear of politics.” But we can see in Christ’s time the air was thick with politics.

The Sadducees didn’t care much for the resurrection message; and the apostles didn’t care to be silenced by political pressure. The point is the apostles did not stop preaching, even as it was seen as a form of political speech and dissent with powers that be. On the contrary, they prayed and with the help of the Holy Spirit grew bolder in speaking out. (even to those who sent Jesus to his death)

I don’t read those events as an example to stifle or tone down one’s message to suit elite politicos, and cede one’s virtue to authorities or powers that be. Likewise, those cautious clergy today never suggest taking a silent approach on, say, the “social justice” agenda. They endorse that. The social justice advocates will demand taking a bold approach to preferred “social issues” – just not certain others – while likening their stand to bold traditional Christian activism.

So my instinctive reaction about ceding certain aspects, political issues or turf to powers that be – under the guise of giving to Caesar what is his – is to remember Pilate. Are we to reject our own responsibility for the circumstances we are in and our God-given rights, remaining silent, then try to wash our hands of the blame for the results in view of the consequences? That would be slightly hypocritical, wouldn’t it? Should we render to Caesar the all-encompassing political turf, stifling our conscience or virtue, and cede all “controversial” social matters to his authority? Politics have usurped cultural matters

Our first allegiance is still to God. If I silence my voice, or cede to status quo those matters over to political authorities or others, I cannot escape accountability. I still bear some responsibility for the outcome. So what then about what we owe God?

The double standards are amplified when the pulpits do talk about their pet issues, social justice and peace. They want to do that “loudly and proudly”. Seriously, are the rest of us demanding injustice, or are we actively opposing peace just for the sake of it? It’s been a while since I attended a good anti-peace march, or a rally against justice. Sorry, I never did and don’t know anyone who has. But I somehow am vehemently against peace and justice according to them, if you follow their accusation to its logical conclusion. That is, to follow their entire “social justice” agenda – as they define it. In fact, they actually posit in their rhetoric that, unless we jump aboard their political agenda, we must be anti-peace or anti-social justice. Many Christians resent that insinuation but it does exist. Many Christians have signed on to that. (one only has to look at the [message of churches])

It’s like that with “99-percenters”, Wall Street Occupiers. They point to everyone outside that 1 percentile of wealth as part of the 99% they speak for. Thus, we must be part of that 1%, then, if we don’t agree with their agenda. I think there are more than 1% of us who look past this fallacy and their unreasonable approach. Some Christians are disgusted by these political tactics. But many buy into them.

When I hear preachers and leftists claim their staunch support for social justice, I wonder who is opposed to justice? It must need a whole lot of defending. Of course, their subjective, ever-evolving definition of “social justice” holds the real key to them.(and we are beholden to their definition) But in simple and clear terms, supporting true justice or peace is a no-brainer. Who could really disagree? We can support justice. It’s a fallacy that we do not.

However, many of these passionate advocates are reluctant to take on matters of abortion, gay marriage, or state-sponsored euthanasia from the pulpits. (all presently ensconced in politics) Their ‘passion pond’ dries up quickly. Statistics are reserved for issues like war or hunger. No, those “political” issues are too controversial. “Better to wash our hands of those. We don’t want the stains that come with those.” In doing so, they advise the flock to leave those “cultural” matters alone. But if their advocacy were not so lopsided and full of double standards, it probably would look much different.

We may better ask if we are really cheating God and not rendering to God what is His? And are we giving Caesar more power authority and control than he should have? Those questions do not seem to come up.

Today, rendering to Caesar not just what is his but what he wants is far more popular and convenient than giving to God what is God’s.

The message is clear: “everything will be fine if you just leave those divisive, controversial, cultural matters alone.” Leave that all to Caesar. Otherwise, full steam ahead. Some see all this as “a culture war”, but I think it’s more like ‘cultural survival of the best fit’, to compliant Christians.

So some clergy can keep right on making blanket disclaimers about not endorsing any specific political candidates or Party politics. But they will likely keep right on endorsing specific “preferred” political issues .

Part 2 to follow
(continued- Part 2 )

Obama’s unfairness doctrine

 

Obama tells us the buck stops with him. Except of course, how it stops with Bush; or Congress; or greedy businesses that “didn’t build that”; or Supreme Court decisions he doesn’t like; etc. He will always call for accountability on others while escaping from it himself. When he says he is responsible it is followed by an excuse or blaming someone else. When a problem happens tied to his administration, he is nowhere to be found or seen running away.

He’s the quintessential politician always in pursuit of the “gotcha moment” against his opponents, while he goes around criticizing gotcha politcs. He will be divissive while accusing others of “the politics of division”. He will claim to represent all the people while talking and catering only to his special interests, and castigating others.

He will show a lack of respect to our allies while claiming he is the best friend they ever had. He will jeopardize national security while claiming all he cares about is protecting America. He’ll claim to be the most caring commander in chief to the troops while asking them to pay more for services or undercutting their values in his policies.

He will claim to want a level playing field and everyone to “pay their fair share” but demand some people should not have to. He associates himself with monopolists who game the system and pay next to nothing in taxes, even making them advisors. Yet he’ll attack others for using loopholes to scam the system. He’ll demand loopholes for his prefered groups. He’ll say we cannot afford spending abroad on wars while unilaterally engaging in a new country using our resources and money.

He’ll accuse others of politicizing issues while he politicizes the same issues. He’ll call out others for their tone, while he sets a negative tone and divides people — like no one else. He will talk about and claim to be following the founders while he characterizes the Constitution as a flawed document.

He will stand up for those who protest while criticizing anyone in dissent with his policies. He will claim there is no red America or blue America while dividing America by color, race, ethnicity, sex, income, background, where they live or job.

He’ll claim to be fiscally responsible while not getting a single budget passed. He’ll claim he is lowering the debt while increasing it. He’ll claim to want a better future for America while he destroys the vision for our future. He’ll claim America is a great country while he attacks and criticizes America’s actions.

He’ll boast about having killed a leading terrorist and many others while banning the word terrorism from use everywhere else. He claims to be combating terrorism, while refering to it as workplace violence.

He’ll claim to endorse the free market and capitalism system while doing everything in his power to curtail or diminish it. He’ll claim to be reducing spending while proposing all kinds of new spending as “investment”. He’ll claim to be for “compromise” while stating he won’t give one inch on his plans. He’ll claim to oppose government mandates while instituting government mandates, even over state controls.

He’ll claim to support religious tolerance, while cracking down on freedoms and forcing laws on religious institutions. He’ll claim to stand for religious freedom while picking fights and forcing mandates on those of conscience. And he accuses others of religious intolerance. He’ll claim to stand for the rule of law while ignoring and refusing to enforce laws to suit his ideology. He’ll accuse others of being ideologues.

He says he supports an all of the above strategy for energy, while supporting only some of the above and attacking others.

He said he support traditional marriage, then refused to enforce existing law.

He says he’s for reform except then opposes it.

He wants to rein in spending while increasing his spending.

He says he is for choice but he opposes it.

He says he is against containment policies while supporting policies of containment.
He says he does what he says… then does not do what he said.

He claims to be totally transparent while he evades, hides the truth and lies. Then claims he is honest with the people.

He’s always telling us he is consistent while being inconsistent.

He’ll say his leadership is unquestionable while following the lead of his special interests; or leading from behind.

And he would claim all this is consitent with “social justice”, and his platform.

Dr. King speaks again

News reports that a new tape was found containing an interview with Dr King,years prior to his Dream speech. In it Dr. King imparted a critical part of his non-violent approach. It was this:

“I would … say that it is a method which seeks to secure a moral end through moral means,” he said. “And it grows out of the whole concept of love, because if one is truly nonviolent that person has a loving spirit, he refuses to inflict injury upon the opponent because he loves the opponent.”

You can contrast that with today’s leftists and see a message. The modern Left, in its evolution, has defined and perfected its own system of protest — unlike King’s philosophy. It may get some results; but not only do you have to question the results, but the motivation and means as well.

King said his was driven by love, as opposed to what we see today. Actually it is based mostly on hate, resentment, or some animosity toward their “enemy”. I mean their political enemy. See, politics is everything, with ideology, today. It trumps all. Their activism is not based on love, as in for one another, and it doesn’t contain a moral component. That part was replaced by the religion of politics. With love and morality out of the equation, what is left? A bitter political activism.

The left tries to project the same on the right, but its the left who has lost their moral compass. Class warfare is the stand-in. And you don’t have to look far for the proof; it’s all around. It is quite a contrast to the “moral means” toward “a moral end”.

Plus the Left today wants very much to inflict damage politically, spiritually and morally on its opponents, IMO. They see it as their purpose; its part of their view of social justice. No it isn’t amazing that we get those results considering what drives or motivates them and what they espouse, such as subjective truth, relative morality, ends justify the means. That is not the same as King had in mind. Winning is the only goal at any cost. If it doesn’t sound angry then it doesn’t sell to their masses. Sure it is sprinkled with words like fairness or justice but there is no mistaking that hurtful spite, open disdain, and blind bigotry aimed at whoever stands in their way — using whatever means, power and government they can toward their ends.

Then you have the economic battles of class warfare designed to deliver redistribution. So it is not the individual they celebrate, its the collective group or demographic that matters. They talk more about the group than the individual. When they talk about their central focus, elections, it’s the Hispanic vote, the black vote, or the fat cats on Wall Street.

I sort of chuckle how they got so irritated by a notion that businesses are people, or that pacs have a freedom of speech. (which they want to regulate as much as they can) They’re furious at the thought of wealthy people excersising their freedom of speech, or gasp that they combine in doing so. That’s a bad thing. But on the the left, they are all about the group and so is their politics. If you aren’t in a group you are invisible to them. It is not based on the individuals. Its the Hispanics or Latinos, the African-Americans, the LGBT’s, the government employees, the private sector unions, AFLCIO, Teamsters, Federation of Teachers, SEIU, the TSA employees, women like NARAl, planned parenthoods, single mothers, college students, and environmentalists, or the middle class, the 99%-ers and 1%-ers. Take a number after those.

And they pander to every group or demographic as such, replacing the individual concerns with that of the group. And they play politics the same way, using them to win and keep power. It’s funny when it comes to organized radical Islamists, they want to dismiss the importance of the group factor, and make every effort to paint them as individuals. If it is Christians, they lump them all into a group with labels to their liking. No label can be gentle enough or non-offensive enough for radical Islamists. They go to lengths to make them individuals. Save the harsh labels and group criticism for Christians. What would King think of their ultimate group dynamics?

Referenced article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ap-exclusive-man-discovers-unheard-audio-of-martin-luther-king-jr-on-reel-in-fathers-attic/2012/08/21/f088ac72-ebc5-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html