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.
