Torture and Truth

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, Merry Christmas.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Thank you, Gadfly.  I am celebrating this day with my family.  Why did you feel compelled to disrupt my celebration? 

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  I know why, IM.  Two days ago, a Jordanian fighter pilot was shot down by ISIS and is now a prisoner.  May God give him strength.

IM:  Why do you say that, AM?

AM:  Ironically, while Senator Feinstein and other like-minded progressives self-flagellate America for the so-called water-boarding torture, ISIS beheads people for propaganda purposes.  What do you think they have in mind for this coalition fighter pilot?  Before they behead him, ISIS will perpetrate and advertise the most extreme forms of torture, ensuring that other fighter pilots are fully aware of what they can expect if and when captured.  They won’t waste their time water boarding the pilot.  They could care less about humane measures during interrogations.  They want to send a global signal that they are fully committed to their cause.

Old Gadfly:  Was water-boarding a form of torture?

AM:  According to legal analysis prior to allowing the method, the critical element was “intent.”  The intent was not to harm or injure, which would be considered torture.  What I find ironic is that it is common to flash the three images of the only terrorists to be water-boarded.  They are still alive and healthy.  It would be far more revealing to show these three murderers against the 3,000 images of innocents murdered on 9/11 and the numerous Americans beheaded by terrorists.  Unfortunately, only Fox News has an interest in revealing the significant flaws and deliberate slant of the Feinstein report. 

Old Gadfly:   Was the Jordanian fighter pilot shot down by a surface to air missile?

AM:  In my opinion, yes.  What should be very disturbing to our national security team is that 20,000 surface to air missiles were unaccounted for after the fall of Kaddafi in Libya.  Then there was the Benghazi attack, where I have been told by credible sources, some of which having been reported in various news venues, that the U.S. was engaged in a gun running operation to supply anti-Assad rebels in Syria. 

Old Gadfly:  Didn’t ISIS emerge from Syria? 

AM:  Most of the evidence points to Camp Bucca in Iraq.  What the news reporting got wrong is that the cause, which unites members of ISIS, is Islamic ideology.  Camp Bucca closely assembled fanatic adherents to the ideology.  To the fanatics, Camp Bucca symbolized the Great Satan, thus adding fuel to the fire already raging in their hearts and minds.

Old Gadfly:  Did they benefit from the Benghazi arms shipments?

AM:  My guess is quite a bit.  But these weapons are a piss ant compared with the weapons they can acquire in the black market.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s revisit the ISIS cause for action.  Why would an American fighter pilot be willing to put himself at similar risk as the Jordanian fighter pilot?  For what cause does he (or she) fight? 

AM:  In my day, I fought for the American way of life—supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic meant something to me.  I was prepared to die to protect our nation from the foreign threat of communism. Our President now wants to help communist Cuba. 

IM:  In terms of our way of life, we now have a domestic enemy, a secular force in America that fights hard to diminish one of the important reasons we fought for independence as a nation.  Our very first of 10 Constitutional amendments guaranteed the freedom of religion.  Our culture and legal institutions were built upon Judeo-Christian principles; principles that regard life as being sacred and declared as an unalienable right in our Declaration of Independence.  Did you know that while Planned Parenthood and other organizations push for unfettered and taxpayer subsidized abortions, I could be fined up to $250,000 and sentenced up to 2 years in prison for destroying an eagle egg?  I guess a human being is less important than an eagle.

Old Gadfly:  Neither of you answered my question.  Why would an American fighter pilot risk a fate similar to the Jordanian fighter pilot?

AM:  I think many in today’s military are confused about what it is that they have committed to.  Sure, many “serve” for the pay and benefits.  If we get too many who serve merely for this purpose we can end up with the same hollow force the Iraqi’s discovered when American forces departed.

Old Gadfly:  But, don’t many in our military fight for our way of life?

IM:  Our way of life is being transformed by a major shift from individual liberty to collective liberty, managed by a central government.

AM:  Many in our nation are not in favor of this shift.  The recent elections are evidence.

Old Gadfly:  There is only so much that Congress can do.  It is still constrained by public sentiment.

IM:  Good point, Gadfly.  Public sentiment is characterized by our news media.  As we have discussed previously, the mainstream news media sources have a progressive lens through which they report.

Old Gadfly:  Did you see the report about the Marquette University (a Jesuit run university) professor being banned from campus while being investigated for “offensive speech” in a blog post?  He basically argued that a student was being unfairly censored for his traditional view of marriage.

IM:  Yes, I saw the report.  The professor is being punished for having a different view.  Add to this the “expectation” that people emotionally react to a white cop shooting a black man is all about the power of certain values despite the truth.

AM:  Sadly, when highly paid athletes hold up their hands to symbolize the “hands up-don’t shoot” meme falsely perpetrated by an accomplice or wear t-shirts bearing “I can’t breathe,” then they are like chimps mimicking prescribed behavior.  Others who assemble to protest over apparent racism or highly paid politicians who release damaging reports such as “CIA torture” are chumps, kowtowing to political ideology.  Hmmm . . . is ISIS successful because followers kowtow to an ideology?

Old Gadfly:  Either way, what we see happening in America is what F.A. Hayek observed among totalitarian regimes in the 1940s.  We discussed this already in a previous conversation.  Recall the opening paragraph in Hayek’s chapter, “The End of Truth,” in The Road to Serfdom:

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants.  If the feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.[1] 

IM:  Part of the last sentence is worth emphasizing:  “Totalitarian governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them to.”  I heard on the news just this morning that the Obama Administration is saying our economy is growing like gangbusters.  Fortunately for the Administration, most Americans are not economists.  Were they, then they would know that when the Administration claims our economy is beyond the recession, technically this is correct.  But what the Administration will not admit is that America is in fact experiencing a serious depression.  The difference depends on monetary versus structural issues.  America’s economy reflects subnormal growth based on structural issues, thus a depression.  For an excellent explanation of this phenomenon see James Rickard’s article, “Welcome to the New Depression.”[2]  Rickards claims the best definition of a depression is from John Maynard Keynes:  “a chronic condition of subnormal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency towards recovery or towards complete collapse.”  Rickards then argues:

Keynes did not refer to declining GDP; he talked about “subnormal” activity.  In other words, it’s entirely possible to have growth in a depression.  The problem is that the growth is below trend.  It is weak growth that does not do the job of providing enough jobs or staying ahead of the national debt.  This is exactly what the U.S. is experiencing today.

AM:  I read the article.  Rickard’s logic is compelling and contrary to what the Administration and mainstream media claim.    

Old Gadfly:  It is ironic and not coincidental that the Feinstein report was released the same time Jonathan Gruber testified before Congress.  This looks like a pretty straight-forward strategy, given a complicit media:  tell the public what you want it to believe.  Let the noise of the Feinstein report obscure the signal about intentional deception to get the Affordable Care Act passed.

IM:  Déjà vu.  Gadfly, do you remember our conversation a couple years ago on engineering public sentiment?  Here is what I said:

As I casually observed actions and behaviors that seemed somewhat isolated from each other, I also kept hearing in the back of my mind: drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .   Then, these seemingly isolated drops began to merge into a stream with force and direction.  I pulled my copy of George Orwell’s 1984 (with John Hurt and Richard Burton) off the shelf and inserted it into my DVD player.  At the very beginning of the movie was a black screen, then these words in white: 

WHO CONTROLS THE PAST

 

CONTROLS THE FUTURE

 

(Following a short pause, the next two lines appeared on the screen)

 

WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT

 

CONTROLS THE PAST

This is when I truly understood the magnitude and danger of Obama and the progressive movement’s design for engineering public sentiment.  Unfortunately, many of our younger voters have no idea that Orwell was capturing the real dangers he actually witnessed in the Soviet Union and Germany when he wrote the original book in 1949.

AM:  There is a scene later in the movie where Richard Burton actually tortures John Hurt to coerce him into internalizing only “the truth” he was allowed to believe.

Old Gadfly:  Fortunately, today of all days is an opportunity for us to embrace a certain truth for which Jesus Christ willingly endured torture and death by crucifixion.  His selfless act liberated us from the chains of sinful illusions.  He taught us to love and to forgive, not to agitate or to hate.

IM:  Is there hope for us?

Old Gadfly:  Yes, if we place our trust in God’s salvation, not in man’s idea of utopia.

---

[1] F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 2007 [originally published 1944]), p. 171.

[2] A note of thanks to my good friend Dennis for alerting me to this article.

Hope and Change: Christmas

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, may I wish you a Merry Christmas?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Yes, thank you!  I don’t mind because I’m Christian.  In fact, I welcome Christmas, because it reminds me of hope for salvation and change in the hearts of men.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):   I don’t mind either, but it makes me a little nervous if other people are nearby because it might offend some of them.  IM, your idea of hope and change are not the same as that promised by the progressive’s Messiah—Barack Obama.  His hope is for all Americans to benefit from the redistribution of wealth managed by a central government.  Their form of change involves changing the institutions of individual liberty into institutions of collective liberty.

IM:  It’s sad that so many in America are not so free to openly believe in the hope and change promised by Jesus Christ—who actually died for our redemption. 

Old Gadfly:  What I find immoral about this is that progressives are using public education to program our children as to what they are allowed or expected to think.  Just yesterday, my daughter and her husband explained to me that they were specifically directed not to use words such as Jesus, Christ, Christmas, nativity scene, or any other Christian-related expression in their classrooms.  It is alright however to express other religious terms and concepts.  My daughter was seriously emotionally and spiritually wounded by this mandate.  She and her family recently returned from a seven-year stay in China where religion is mostly practiced in secret.  Now she has returned to her country to find that it is becoming like China.  She sympathized with the person explaining these policies because schools are becoming targets for lawsuits.  While many in these schools believe they would more likely win suits in the courts, they can’t afford the cost of litigation.

IM:  So, obviously there is a deliberate effort to deny Americans the freedom to proclaim their belief in Jesus Christ and the traditional national holiday of Christmas.  Yet, what if I told you that anyone who does not believe that global warming is human caused is a denier or Neanderthal?

AM:  Then based on that belief I am a Neanderthal.  While Jonathan Gruber, the Obamacare architect, is an opportunist now wealthy (from taxpayer funded payments via federal and state governments) from his scheming, he may be right about Americans being stupid.  I recently watched an interview of Al Gore at the Aspen Institute.  He is very passionate about his global warming crusade.  As co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management, and a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Gore is amassing a fortune in green energy projects.  Most of the money comes from the government (that is taxpayer revenue).  This is definitely redistribution of the wealth, but it is not for those who might need it.  It is one of the benefits of crony capitalism.

Old Gadfly:  This year, the European Union realized that green energy initiatives were unaffordable.  They discovered that idealism must be reconciled with realism.  How many Americas who recite the green energy mantra know this?  What I find very concerning is that President Obama wants to “educate” our children to make sure they believe the right thing about global warming (or climate change).  He is doing this through the new “Climate Education and Literacy Initiative” through the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.  According to the U.S. News & World Report, “The administration wants students and teachers to toe the line on climate change,” and that the Administration “will distribute science-based information—in line with the administration’s position on the issue—to students, teachers and the broader public.”

IM:  Progressives are threatened by Christianity—this is why they try to achieve a moral high road with their notion (and quite frankly, folklore) of science.  Christian values are not consistent with progressive values.  Thomas Woods, a Harvard and Columbia-trained historian, converted from Lutheranism to Roman Catholicism, and has written an informative book:  How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.  Here is the opening paragraph:

Philip Jenkins, a distinguished professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, has called anti-Catholicism the one remaining acceptable prejudice in America.  His assessment is difficult to dispute.  In our media and popular culture, little is off-limits when it comes to ridiculing or parodying the Church.  My own students, to the extent that they know anything at all about the Church, are typically familiar with alleged Church “corruption,” of which they heard ceaseless tales of varying credibility from their high school teachers.  The story of Catholicism, as far as they know, is one of ignorance, repression, and stagnation.  That Western civilization stands indebted to the Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, important legal principles, and much else besides has not exactly been impressed upon them with terrific zeal.  Western civilization owes far more to the Catholic Church than most people, Catholics included—often realize.  The Church, in fact, built Western civilization.[1]  

Old Gadfly:  So far, progressives are “hopeful” that Pope Francis will “change” Catholic doctrine to be more compatible with progressive values.  Pope Francis recently punished an American Cardinal for his more conservative views.  The pressure being placed on Pope Francis is really no different from the temptations of Christ in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13).  Progressives want to celebrate the victory of secularism over Christianity.  The real test is that Pope Francis is a Jesuit.  Jesuits have a controversial history with the Vatican.  Jesuits openly collaborated with Marxist efforts in South and Central America.    By the way, California Governor Jerry Brown was a Jesuit in training—so this may explain his Marxist approach to public policy.  We may soon see whether Pope Francis is a progressive Catholic or a Catholic progressive.  If he chooses to go against traditional doctrine of the Church, then he may demonstrate that he is a progressive Catholic, where his political views determine his religious positions.

IM:  It seems that this time of the year might be an opportunity to truly reflect on what really matters in this mortal life, especially for those of us who believe in accountability after death.

Old Gadfly:  Perhaps those who feel compelled to buy the “Happy Holidays” expression are the true Mother Nature deniers.

---

[1] Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 1.

American Fascism

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, what is fascism?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Dictionary.com defines fascism as “a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):   That system is present in America.  The man who occupies the most powerful office in the world, who claimed the midterm elections were not about him but his policies, completely dismisses the Americans who voted against those policies and claims he “heard” those who did not vote—justifying in his egomaniac mind an imaginary mandate to dictate the policies he, the omniscient one, deems damn well to institute.  For example, while frequently claiming he lacked the authority to initiate new policies on immigration, he did so anyway, indicating he has no respect or need for Congress, and by implication the Constitution.  As I speak, thousands of new federal jobs are being created to accelerate amnesty.  In our last discussion, we discussed the clear political purpose and implications for the executive action.

IM:  Yet, if we take a close look at the other elements of the definition, there are vivid examples.  For instance, look at “forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism.”  Remember what happened to Joe the plumber?  There was a deliberate attempt to discredit him for his public opposition to candidate Obama’s plan to redistribute wealth.

 

  AM:  The dictator’s silence on the IRS suppression of conservative voices speaks volumes.  We read or hear very little about this case from mainstream media, except for Fox News, which is not a credible news source according to the White House (and virtually all progressives). 

Old Gadfly:  Why do you think this is the case?

IM:  It is no secret that there are powerful connections between the White House and media.  But few Americans know about it, which is why the media gets away with its tremendously slanted news reporting (see also here, here, and here).  Unfortunately, accountability for those in the club is difficult under this Administration (see here and here).  How about the Justice Department’s prosecutorial discretion in prosecuting Dinesh D’Souza for a $30,000 campaign contribution, when charlatan Al Sharpton gets away with $4.5 million in income tax evasion?  The media had a heyday with a Congressional staffer who made comments about the dictator’s children. 

Old Gadfly:  Yet some “watchdog” news does get out.  What does General Petraeus know that keeps a two-year FBI investigation open?

AM:  Good question on Petraeus.  I’ll venture a guess.  Remember, Petraeus was the CIA Director during the Benghazi scandal.  While the Administration lied to the American public about the attack being mob-related (to get reelected), there is so much more to unravel in this case such as deliberate relations with al Qaeda affiliates, gun running operations to support elements in Syria, and so forth.  Petraeus knows too much and must be muzzled.

Old Gadfly:  Thoughts on the definition’s “regimenting all industry and commerce”?

IM:  Look at the healthcare industry—it represents one-sixth of our economy and a motivation value that operates at Maslow’s two lowest levels:  physical safety and security.  This regimentation took control of a major portion of our economy and imposed uncertainty and fear in the minds of millions of people. 

Old Gadfly:  How about public education? 

IM:  Now I am learning that when federal subsidies for Medicaid dry up in 2017, the impact will be on state-funded public education.  In other words, the millions that signed up for federally subsidize Medicaid will become a state taxpayer burden if the same levels of support are maintained.  Most likely another large budget item—public education—will become a target for potential budget cuts.  We can also go on about the energy industry’s winners (inefficient and costly green energy) and losers (fossil fuel energy).  Now, we have the EPA threatening to regulate all water in the United States.  I also could go on and on about labor laws, equal opportunity regulations, and so forth—pathetic attempts to regulate commerce while accelerating a race to the bottom in terms of talent, innovation, and creativity.

AM:  The image these circumstances create in my mind is pigeon chess with the dictator acting as the pigeon, strutting across and defecating on the chess board--our once great nation--with his chest all puffed up.

Old Gadfly:  How about the notion of nationalism?

IM:  Obama has always campaigned with his signature symbol, which represents his idea of America as a nation.

 

Old Gadfly:  Tell me about “Obama for America.”

IM:  During his presidential campaign, Obama for America was his website for organizing action.  Today, the same website, www.ofa.org, stands for “Organizing for America.”  Isn’t that ironic?  Before his meteoric rise in public office, he was a Saul Alinsky-trained community organizer.  The tactic was simple:  agitate and organize.  It helps to be a good speaker that can reach the common person at the emotional level.  Just yesterday, I read a similar tactic quoted in Wikipedia:

Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. . . . All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. . . . The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. . . . The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.

Old Gadfly:  How did Wikipedia cite the source for the quote? 

IM:  These words were written by Adolph Hitler in Chapter VI, Volume One of Mein Kampf.[1]  As Hitler exploited the need for hope and change, he amplified a bigger than life persona.  The following graphic shows two scenes (one in 1936 and the other in 2008) broadcasting a bigger than life image.

Old Gadfly:  Hitler had a vision for transforming Germany.  What was his strategy?

IM:  The strategy’s central weapon was propaganda.  As to the methods to be employed, Hitler further explained in Mein Kampf:

Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. . . . The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. . . Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula.

AM:  The current State-sanctioned narrative on the Ferguson incident is a clear example of this form of propaganda.

Old Gadfly:  I think we can also see how race, in fascism’s definition, is an obvious part of the overall strategy.

IM:  Sadly, as I waded through the Wikipedia article, I could not help but notice how important it was for Hitler to disseminate cheap radios so the masses could hear him speak.  Obama’s massive use of social media (Facebook, twitter, etc.), not to mention the constant coverage by leftist mainstream media venues, has been an important tool in making sure the public only hears Obama’s story.

AM:  Quite frankly, just as in Hitler’s day, people buy in to this crap, and too many of those who don’t are afraid to do anything about it.

Old Gadfly:  It would be hard to rebut the notion that fascism is in fact alive in America.  Yet, I am convinced that if we can find a way to reach enough “true Americans,” we can turn this around.

IM:  It would help to have a strategy or at least a goal to unify efforts.

Old Gadfly:  One such effort underway is the Article V movement, where States push for a convention of states for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.  The Convention of States Project (ConventionofStates.org) is one particular effort that focuses on fiscal responsibility, power and jurisdiction, and term limits.  We do not have the time to discuss the project in detail here, but I encourage you to visit their website and get involved.  There is nothing to lose yet potentially a lot to be gained in rebalancing the power in our federal system.  People often forget that the States created the federal government with specific, enumerated powers delegated to it.  Over time the federal government has forgotten this relationship.  And now we see the damage that is being done.

AM:  I am amazed.  As outraged as I see nonprogressives becoming, you are advocating a peaceful, constitutional approach to solving the problem.  Occasionally, I hear people mentioning the possibility of a revolution.

          Old Gadfly:  We have enough truly educated and discerning Americans who appreciate the tremendous prosperity and peace made possible in a Constitutional Republic.  Now, they see the political corruption that results from violating our founding principles.  We have a moral obligation to act in a reasonable and constructive manner to preserve our Constitutional Republic.  Otherwise, the American ideal and all the goodness it represents will be overcome by forces of evil.

---

[1] The English translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf is available at the Gutenberg Project at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.

Is Social Justice Just?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, as I observed the reaction to the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, I could not help but wonder if our society has lost a reasonable grasp of what exactly justice is.  Many experienced prosecutors claimed that there was insufficient evidence to even take the case to a grand jury, while others completely disagreed with and were outraged by the grand jury’s decision.  Many of those in the latter group have no interest in reviewing transcripts of the proceeding.  They know what they believe—that a white cop killed a black teenager--and they have no desire to consider facts to the contrary.  Our system of justice did not lead to an indictment because the facts and circumstances clearly indicated Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown in self-defense.  Yet, people still believe Wilson should be punished for killing Michael Brown.  President Obama even chose to make a statement (another teaching moment opportunity) following the grand jury decision.  Despite the enduring American standard that an individual is presumed innocent till proven guilty, not one word was uttered by Obama to defend Officer Wilson or to offer any compassion for being a lynch victim in the court of public opinion.  Obama’s omission spoke volumes of implied judgment from the highest ranking American charged with the moral and legal obligation of executing the laws of our Nation.  What, then, is justice and how is it different from injustice?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  You hit on the key distinction—a white cop killed a black teenager.  This is an undeniable fact—a white man killed a black teenager.  This was the case in the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Recall that George Zimmerman, who was acquitted because the jury ruled that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense, was also treated in the public narrative as a white man (even though he was Hispanic).  The jury’s verdict in both cases violated the concept of social justice, which is a remedy for sins of the past, such as the institution of slavery, and modern day sins, such as income inequality.  Factions in our society do not want to transcend the slavery ghost—it’s a convenient excuse for any perception of oppression (such as making a minimum wage at a fast food restaurant).  Other factions of our society, especially political progressives, amplify claims of social injustice to obscure their failed welfare state policies.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  IM, your comments are bold, and they challenge American political correctness.  Let me respond to the slavery ghost.  Following Lincoln’s assassination, Democrats obstructed efforts to implement freedom for blacks and to integrate them into our broader society.  Later, President Eisenhower advocated a Civil Rights Act only to have it blocked by a Democrat-controlled Senate, whose majority leader was Lyndon Baines Johnson.  By the way, does this sound like Harry Reid blocking 300 or so bills passed in a Republican House of representatives?  Then, President Johnson pushed for a Civil Rights Act as an element of his Great Society initiatives.  Ever since, Democrats have been successful in convincing the black population that Democrats are their true champions for the oppressed—not in the form of liberty but as social justice.  Unfortunately the word is slowly getting out that the Great Society vision created entitlement incentives that destroyed the black family, ultimately suffering a brutal price today (hint:  look at Michael Brown’s family situation).  Despite glib progressive narratives, there is an “arithmetic-version” of a grand jury verdict on the American welfare state, check out the graph below.

Old Gadfly:  Certainly any argument that suggests insufficient government resources accounts for the doubling of poor female householders is an insult to the “arithmetic-version” grand jury.  As the graph below indicates, the cost of the federal government today is 64 times the cost per person in constant 2014 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation). 

 

Old Gadfly:  For the skeptics who would blame the increase in the cost of government on defense spending, the following chart compares the annual ratio of budget outlays for defense and health and human services (HHS; i.e., entitlement programs) in relation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

IM:  Progressives reject these facts because they do not fit “the frame” (see Old Gadfly’s monologue in August 2013:  Cogito Ergo Sum).  The frame is that progressives (mostly Democrats) are the champions for the oppressed.  The near-monolithic black vote  was still deemed to be insufficient to guarantee future elections, so other “classes” (e.g., helpless women, immigrants, gays, laborers, etc.) have been brought into the “indentured” camp to generate enough votes for future elections.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, your analysis implies a more sinister element at play in America.  Did either of you gentlemen watch Meet the Press this past Sunday?

IM:  Yes, there was a rather heated exchange between former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Professor Michael Dyson.

AM: I did not watch Meet the Press.  However, I can only imagine that the discussion pitted street-smart reality against ivory tower idealism.

Old Gadfly:  Amazing, AM.  That’s exactly how the conversation played out. However, that was not the sinister part of the program I want to bring to your attention.  Former Governor Bill Richardson made some comments that went by so quickly that I suspect the vast majority of viewers missed what he was saying.  Host Chuck Todd noted that Richardson was with the President the Friday before, implying he may have received inside information on the immigration strategy.  When discussing the executive action on immigration, Richardson bemoaned that had this action taken place before the midterm elections it would have increased turnout in Colorado (which has a new Democrat-devised, easily manipulated voting system now in place), suggesting a different outcome.  This comment was just a warm-up comment.  He went on to say that the executive action was a political action--and in my opinion, anything but a just action-- along with the Affordable Care Act, potentially affecting 10 million people.  Richardson then admitted the key reason for the action:  “they will remember” and “they will be loyal.”  Since I have seen the Internet scrubbed of similar evidence, here is an excerpt from the transcript:      

CHUCK TODD:  Go ahead, you were with the president I know on Friday. But should he have given Congress five more months? He essentially said, "I'm going to sign this order on June 1st if you don't act."

BILL RICHARDSON:  Oh, I think the president didn't take this action before the election, respecting the will of--

CHUCK TODD:  Do you think that was the right call?

BILL RICHARDSON:  No. I think he should've done it.

CHUCK TODD:  Okay.

BILL RICHARDSON:  Because I think it would have increased turnout in Colorado. But look, I was around. I voted for this, I'm that old. I voted for the--

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:  Yeah, '86, yeah.

BILL RICHARDSON:  And then George Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush signed an executive order exactly like this, 1.4 million, 40% like President Obama did, and there was no uproar, because they did the right thing.

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  But that was--

(OVERTALK)

BILL RICHARDSON:  Ronald--

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  --to a specific bill though. That's what the president will order today--

BILL RICHARDSON:  But it was families.

(OVERTALK)

BILL RICHARDSON:  No, it was families.

(OVERTALK)

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  This was such a critical point.

CHUCK TODD:  Well, and if it's--

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  That was pertaining to a 1986 bill passed by Congress, it was clean up operations. This was the--

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:  It was cleaning up a bill. It is different.

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  Right. The president here is making new policy because he doesn't like what Congress has not done. That makes all the difference. . . .  

BILL RICHARDSON:  Let me--the politics, ten million families are now affected by this act and by the Affordable Care Act.

CHUCK TODD:  And they're going to be loyal.

BILL RICHARDSON:  And they're going to be loyal. They're going to remember.

Old Gadfly:  Even though other panel members kept talking over him, Scarborough attempted to correct the existing folklore that Obama is merely repeating what others have done.  Scarborough explained that Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush signed executive orders to “clean-up” unclear provisions of bills that had already been passed by Congress.  Obama’s executive action is not tied to specific legislation; it is legal overreach and abuse of executive power.

AM:  When I see what is being done in the name of politics, it is so sad that in America today we are witnessing obvious corruption in the name of political conquest—Benghazi and Fast & Furious deception, IRS targeting of conservative groups, journalist investigations/prosecutions, the Justice Department lowering the prosecutorial discretion bar to prosecute Dinesh D’Souza for a $30,000 campaign finance violation, crony capitalism with Wall Street and the health insurance industry, and so forth; yet, Al Sharpton gets away with $4.5 million in income tax evasion—he’s too busy visiting the White House to pay his taxes. 

Old Gadfly:  Social justice appears to be a system where the political elite in power get to pick winners and losers.  This is not justice.  Justice is justice.  Any variation in the form of an adjective (social justice, economic justice, political justice, etc.) is injustice.  The conundrum here is that justice involves a clear sense of morality, but that clear sense has become situationally relative and blurred.  For an excellent commentary on this issue see Dennis Praeger’s excellent article on today’s moral divide.  Since the 30s in Europe and the 60s in America, morality, like truth, is now in the eye of the beholder—progressives create their own truth and morality.  That is, “progressives in power” create truth and morality.  Once created, they are imposed on the masses.  This is why a Colorado baker can be punished for not catering a same-sex wedding ceremony and forced to attend mandatory sensitivity  training (similar to the reeducation camps that still exist in such liberal paradises as North Korea and China) by an administrative judge, without the benefit of due process.  Due process represents the notion of rule through law, a key moral element of justice.  In the baker’s case, social justice was needed to demonstrate that while all men are created equal, some are more equal than others.  Sound familiar?  Racism is a problem in America.  But the bigoted contempt and hatred are focused upon the progressive’s convenient scape goat:  the white man and his equivalents, such as black conservatives, female conservatives of any ethnic group, a white cop who shoots a black teenage bully in self defense, and any person who actually wants to think and fend for oneself as a law-abiding citizen.

          AM:  Sad.  So very sad.