subscribe: Posts | Comments | Email


Social Justice: The Left using your tax dollars to sell their policy

Social Justice: The Left using your tax dollars to sell their policy

The road to redefining America is being paved with your tax dollar.

The road to redefining America is being paved with your tax dollar

Social Justice has become the latest shroud for liberal takeover of our culture and community.  The left is masterful at crafting confusing and enticing language the masses accept without a deliberate look at the focus.  Case in point: Pro-Choice.  I mean, who isn’t for letting others choose, and me also for that matter? { Except for the little fact that it doesn’t allow any choice to the human being whose heart is beating. }

At the magic moment that awareness and opinion meet in ones psyche, the Left will deliberately confuse the matter by attributing lies.  Such is the case with the latest bastion of bologna being spun for liberal advancement.

What is social justice?  Well, it’s hard to say, and as usual, one must do their own reporting because the liberal media will oft allow the Left their way of mincing words.  Indeed, social justice isn’t a new concept.  The Canadians to the North certainly embrace the term and rally behind it as if it were religion.  Culture has become religion for so many.  As our hopey, changey President continues to illustrate his agenda, it becomes increasingly clear that nothing in his repertoire is exactly new… he just mimics the political atmosphere of our Northern neighbor, focusing us on a cultural “awakening.”

In an exercise of fairness, let’s have a self-proclaimed, knowledgeable liberal explain what he feels the definition of “social justice” is.  The scene for this is at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” event in Washington, D.C.  My friend, Ben Howe, was there and reported and produced this awesome video.  Read his post at Red State, here.

If it’s even necessary to draw a conclusion after that succinct definition, I will only add to the effort by saying, “Social Justice” has become the left’s new economic policy.  In order to “restabilize” the country, they want to systematically redistribute wealth amongst the people.  Ready socialism.  The President predicted to Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail that his intention was to do so.  The left is quick to marginalize the criticism but it fits the definition like leggings on a fat girl.  Tight.

The only conspiracy theory outstanding is whether or not the Left is intentionally destabilizing the economy to institute the practice.  One can certainly see the plausibility of this argument since nonsense spending outside of our means is rampant with renewed efforts to spend yet again.

In retrospect, we know that Conservatives have their own analysis of economic policies that eliminate deficits.  The most famous example of workable a solution is the “trickle down” politics of Ronald Reagan.  The hero of Conservative thought was adept at defining his philosophy and practicing it. He took hits during his administration but weathered the storm long enough to prove its effective nature.  Coupled with fiscal restraint, it is the pinnacle of our great society.

These two philosophies define the two parties at this point.  Spend versus save.  Give to the government to manage or allow you to manage yourself.  Trust the system or trust the people.

The lines are drawn, it is up to the parties to “sell” their philosophy to the population.  But, as Conservatives have long complained, the insidious permeation of our journalism and educational systems is skewing the playing field for the message of conservative versus liberal thought.  One could effectively argue our public university system, funded by taxpayer dollars, is already showing the rusty edges of corrosion.  There is but one place our government is to remain unhindered by government ideology:  the spending of our public taxpayer dollars.  You agree, yes?  The collective spending power of the American people should not go to a political party… it’s ideology or attempt to rewrite history, yes?

Today, your government is ACTIVELY and purposefully funding the idea of social justice.

Here is a useful example, one that is popping up in my backyard….

As you are all well aware, our government sought to avert financial crisis by passing a series of “stimulus” bills that would inject needed cash into the economy.  Sold as “the” fix for unemployment, the population was sold the promise of jobs – shovel-ready…

We all know how that worked out. (Yes, that was the HuffPo.  Really.)

One of the many public programs funds agencies that support the poor and unemployed.  These agencies are worthy in many respects.   This, too, sounds like a great concept… deliver relief to agencies on a local level that can help pay electric bills and other necessities until families recover.  However, nested in the nearly 5.5 million dollars that was received merely to *my* local Missouri Valley Community Action Agency, there is a hidden plan of indoctrination.

THIS WEEKEND, coinciding with September 11th, the MO Valley Community Action Agency (MVCAA) is joining with my alma mater, University of Central Missouri to put on an “International” Film Festival featuring films that teach and support the idea of…. Yes, social justice.


Of course they confuse the issue in their mission statement:

The purpose of the Show Me Social Justice International Film Festival is to raise awareness of Social Justice Issues. Using a variety of artistic media, our goal is to impact our communities, both locally and globally, in order to inspire personal responsibility and positive action.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?  The act of taking from one and rewarding another IN NO WAY demonstrates a person’s responsibility for self NOR has it ever, in the history of man, promoted a sense of self-worth and can-do. Can’t you just see the left falling apart with laughter as they use George W. Bush’s famous term?  And what is positive action?  It’s as ambiguous as the wind.

After reviewing the Board of the MVCAA, it became clear in my mind that none of these individuals could have dreamed up the scheme so I began to look around…

Yes, they are borrowing the idea from the North:


And while I cannot confirm that each film festival is tax-payer funded, it seems clear that it is popping up around the country.  California. Louisiana. New York.

Are you comfortable funding a liberal agenda?  Are you outraged that money that should be helping the unemployed and creating jobs is diverting funds to an event that 60 people on Facebook “like?”

The lasting legacy of this effort is a rewriting of history.  Want to see it in practice?

The Missouri Association of Social Welfare claims the following:

“A Citizen’s Voice for Social Justice Since 1901.” (funding via the United Way)

Interesting, since the U.S. didn’t begin to really embrace the term until the 50s and 60s.  The point here is that this old philosophy is being embraced by any social welfare program in an effort to tell this story: “our roots are deep.”  They claim we should embrace a redistribution of wealth out of tradition.   JUST as the Tea Party quotes the founders and the traditions therein.

This, my friends, is how they will rise up.   Social Justice, built on a foundation of lies, stealing our language and creating a shroud of “tradition”  is already OF the government and we are OF the people.  This will become the battlefield in which a war will be waged.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Dan Hallock says:

    I think the parties are defined less by ‘spend vs save’ than by ‘spend domestically vs spend on foreign wars of choice’. Fiscal responsibility is not going to come from the Republican party, and if the choice comes down to nationalized health insurance or ‘bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,’ I’ll take the health insurance, please.

  2. Mommentator says:

    Thanks Dan for stopping by. Of course, your argument that one wrong creates a pathway for more wrong would be logically incoherent. IF we were to accept the premise that the war was of choice and we decided to blame America for her gumption to defend herself, we still wouldn’t want to spend ourselves into an oblivion would we? Perhaps you missed the news this week that President Obama has created more of a deficit than all other Presidents combined? Oh, also that His spending is more than the total cost of that war of “our choice?”

    Please do not begin your response with “BUT BUSH.”

  3. So, Dan, is there no line that anyone could cross where you would feel a military response is justified?

    By the way, nowhere was the choice between retaliation against our enemies and giving control to a major hunk of our economy to government bureaucrats given. If it were and you chose the latter, you’re a fool.

  4. Dan Hallock says:

    The bomb-Iran song wasn’t Bush, it was McCain; the pro-war talk continues to emanate from Palin and Gingrich and Beck. And, vastly oversized military spending is a Reagan/Bush I tradition.

    We disagree on the fundamentals enough that I mostly read and try to understand and don’t comment. (I think Canada’s quite a nice place, actually.) So I am not going to respond to everything in your post or tone.

    But it’s not just a matter of disagreement, it is deceptive and wrong to characterize the fiscal policy of the Republican party as ‘saving’. The national debt to GDP ratio doubled under Bush. It tripled under Reagan. It fell under Clinton, Carter, Kennedy & LBJ and, to their credit, Nixon and Ike.

    I think it’s a pretty fundamental premise of America’s two-party system that we have to choose between lesser evils — and it’s very clear that Republicans have, since Reagan, been about damn-the-consequences massive military intervention and about cutting taxes on the rich & corporate to near-zero on the backs on the middle class.

    If that’s what you support, you have the right to do so. If you think that’s less evil than what the Democrats want to spend the money on, fine. But calling it ‘spend vs save’ is absolutely absurd.

  5. Dan Hallock says:

    Also for what it’s worth: I’m criticizing the broad painting of the parties here. The Republicans that you support in primaries and the ones that you particularly like may well be more fiscally responsible than the ones that have been President in the last thirty years and that are currently populating the House & Senate. It could even be that John Thune, who I haven’t studied very hard at this point; or some of the new crop of Senate and House candidates don’t fit this mold. That would be awesome. I’m not trying to put every Republican in a box, just talking about the overall platform of the party as it stands.

  6. Despite what you assume, my wife and I saw all but one (film on autism that we couldn’t see) of the films at the Show Me Social Justice International Film Festival. They all followed the mission statement in that they show folks with problems in the U.S. and other counties trying to solve their own problems. None were political or advocated any kind of socialism, although they all showed sympathy for fellow humans in need of everything from food to equal treatment. We all have to halp such folks in the way we feel is most appropriate.

  7. Mommentator says:


    I agree with the fundamental right and think it may be a worthy interest group. I do have a problem with public tax dollars, which were to be used to promote job creation, going to a public policy forum… which is what these issues intend to do. I believe it’s wrong and I’m pretty sure I’m right since the funds for this “International” film festival are under a full investigation:


  1. Tweets that mention Social Justice: The Left using your tax dollars to sell their policy | Political Mommentary -- - [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Susan Rector, Anita Hurley. Anita Hurley said: RT @Mommentator: Blog Post: Social …

Leave a Reply