Sometime this past week, President Barack Obama told a group of Ferguson protesters to “think big, but go gradual,” though those were not his exact words. This revelation comes via an article written for the Guardian by Ferguson protester Phillip Agnew, who by the way proudly describes himself as “the dealer and the stoner” on his Twitter account:
He listened. Intently. He responded passionately. He agreed with many of our points and offered his take on the current State of the Union. He presented the reforms that have dominated the discourse in the hours after our meeting. He cautioned us against demanding too big and stressed gradualism. He counseled us that the wheels of progress turn sluggishly and reminded us of the progress that got us to this point: a room full of black folk in the Oval Office. He asked for our help, harkening back to his organizing days when, in the streets of Chicago, the cries of the people shifted the landscape. We debated on the power of the vote and the lack of faith in the Democratic party.
Furthermore, according to The Hill, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have begun urging President Obama to invite the families of Eric Garner and Mike Brown to the State of the Union address so as to “send a strong signal that Washington policymakers are serious about tackling criminal justice reform head on.” He will most likely accept this demand.
Fairness and justice has been and should be measured and doled out based on factual evidence and the rule of law. However, it appears that the radical Leftists among us are on the verge of gradually transforming “our system of justice into a system of social justice,” as Sara Noble at the Independent Sentinel astutely states:
Mr. Obama is changing the way we think. We are no longer exceptional because we are independent and self-sufficient. We are members of a collective who act in unison to spread the wealth because, in a system of social justice, all are equal and get equal rewards. Justice is meted out, not according to the rule of law, but according to emotions, not according to hard work and achievement, but according to quotas.
Consider for instance how Rolling Stone magazine tried to blindly issue justice based on the since debunked rants of an alleged rape victim. Or think rather of the Ferguson protesters that Obama supports. They believe that the non-indictment verdict pertaining to the Mike Brown / Darren Wilson case should be reversed. Not because the evidence suggests that to be the right thing to do – but because the verdict offends their extraordinarily false perception of what justice ought to look like.
The irony is that the system of social justice that they desire to implement contains more hole than Swiss cheese. These holes exist because of the exceptional bias that Leftists maintain when things do not turn out the way they want. Blogger Henry Leriche explains:
Wrong to me is not left or right, black or white. It is colorless and balanced! Nobody should ever monopolize injustice. If they do, they are not worth their journalistic salt. True journalists report balance and are bound by code of ethics. Many left wing journalists are bound by bias and their personal agendas.
Many of these hypocritical left wingers only report on issues that fits in with their narrative on race. They sacrifice truth, ethics, neutrality at the expense of half truths, lies and ideology. If a black person is treated wrongly, I agree with the black person. So does the left wing. If a white person is treated badly, I support the white person. Well, here’s where it gets interesting. Not the left wing though. They support the black aggressor. They articles also reflect this bias.
Exactly. The notion of social justice sounds fine upfront, until emotions and quotas inevitably make their appearance. Then real justice gets replaced with a form of pseudo justice that turns black criminals into martys just because they’re black, the evidence be damned. I find all this to be very scary, especially given that there might not be much we can do to stop this seemingly incapable march toward social “justice” . . .