A Joke, A Bad Joke Maybe? Blah Blah Blah Stop with Your PC Mentality & Get Over It

People are so PC today they are unable to get a joke, even it is a bad joke. It is impossible for the PC crowd to shrug off a bad joke. To the PC overly sensitive idiots: Get the heck over it!!  The people who are in a tizzy over this must be self-conscience or something.  Progressives are self-hating people so....  An old guy told an old joke.  So what. If the feminuts feel offended, oh well.  Take a hard look at yourself and think the next time before you sleep with some guy you barely know.  Nothing like opening yourself up to PTSDs STDs and other risks.  Nah, we're not screwed up with our priorities nowadays.....  Liberals are more worried about a bad joke than women having sex and their being the possibility that they will catch all those venereal diseases, AIDS, etc.  Get a grip folks.  If liberals had even a speck of self-control they wouldn't put themselves in bad positions.

This is the joke: “You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives, The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.” 


It may not have been funny but it sure wasn't something to get outraged over. Unless you've got an agenda. And progressives always do. 


The Other McCain says We Forgive You, Foster Friess  and points out that the joke that libs have dubbed "controversial" was probably first used by Phyllis Diller.  This took place way back when, when women, specifically progressive women, had a sense of humor or could at least not get overly sensitive after hearing a bad joke.  


Foster Friess ended up apologizing to the uptight, politically correct, feminuts and the rest of the dummicrats. 

Hack Wilson has a fantastic post In Defense of Santorum.  Fuzzy Slippers has a marvelous post debunking the hystrionics and kookball claims from the Left that Santorum will engage in 'social engineering", On "Social Engineering" : Stop With The Crazy About Rick Santorum, Please. 

Double Standard Exposed: MSM Consistently Cries Wolf on Racism

The fact that progressives consistently make false accusations of racism when conservatives criticize the President has rendered the charge of racism meaningless and a joke. That is unfortunate for the times when racism actually occurs.

Do Today's Democrat Socialists Parallel Yesterday's National Socialists?

1. Economic Fascism

2. Cult of Personality 

3. Penchant for Thuggery

4. They've Come for Your Guns 

5. Undermine Traditional Religion While Seeking To Exploit It 

6. Anti-Progress 

7. Intellectual Apologists 

8. Anti-Jewish 

9. Practice the Big Lie 

10. Come to Power Democratically, Retain Power Dictatorially 

Don Feder gives further explanation of these points in his article Top Ten Ways Obama Socialists Are Like National Socialists. 

The Masterful Killing of Osama Bin Laden, Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, and Progressives Skewed Morality

The Navy Seals masterful operational tactics which killed Osama Bin Laden has sparked a debate, yet again, as to whether enhanced interrogation techniques work and are ever morally justifiable under extreme, out of the ordinary circumstances.  Enhanced interrogation techniques aided in finding and killing Osama Bin Laden.  Leon Panetta and previous directors of the CIA have admitted this, that EIT's were one piece of the puzzle in finding Bin Laden. We owe the Navy Seals our gratitude to a mission well done.  They are to be commended for their bravery for a mission accomplished, which was started not too long after September 11, 2001.  Bin Laden got exactly what he deserved.  I hope that those families who lost loved ones on 9/11 may now feel some sense of justice now that Osama is dead and buried at sea. 


Progressives are rehashing the old debate, asking whether it is ever moral to use enhanced interrogation techniques to get our enemy detainees to divulge important information.  Bernard Goldberg asks the question: "Why it is moral to allow the bomb to go off killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?" 

And then goes on to say...

"And exactly what American values are upheld by letting the bomb go off? I can’t think of any.
If liberals want to make the case that waterboarding is immoral no matter how many innocent lives are saved – no matter if the target is a yellow school bus filled with third graders on their way to the museum – then Man Up and make the case, with no apologies."

I don't know how anyone could actually think that it is moral to simply allow millions of innocents to die when there is an avenue we could use in extreme cases to prevent the tragedy from happening.  How is it an American value to vie for our nation to yield in its duty to protect its citizens?  I don't consider America abandoning its responsibility to do its all to protect American citizens from our enemies adhering to American values. 


Progressives like to spout the human rights mantra, have compassion for and are fervent defenders of criminals, scumbags, and terrorists.  For some reason liberals hearts empathize with the scum of the earth even though these people are responsible for the most heinous of crimes and thrive on victimizing ordinary people.  For some reason progressives haven't deemed that the ordinary Joes and Joannes of this world to be worthy of the same compassion as the scumbags of the world.  In addition liberals treat the innocent and most vulnerable of all with utter contempt, like they are non-existent in their alternate quasi-reality. According to liberals the innocent and most vulnerable of all who have not committed any crimes are undeserving of the same rights simply because these babies are unable to speak, are inconvenient, and thus to progressives they are to be brutally destroyed and thrown out like they were pieces of garbage all because progressives are irresponsible, morally bankrupt human beings who prey on the weak. 


  Progressives would have us revert back to a time when so-called civilized people committed barbaric actions.  In First Century BC the Carthaginians were a civilized people who wanted to maintain their opulent lifestyle and would crush the skulls of infants in order to sacrifice them to the pagan Gods as a way of achieving that end and today we have liberals who want to maintain a relatively comfortable lifestyle and in order to do so they murder their offspring.  And the progressives push this demonic agenda on the confused, desperate, and frightened. 


My husband was reminded of and pointed me to this famous passage from The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton: 


In a previous chapter I have hinted at something of the psychology that
lies behind a certain type of religion. There was a tendency in those
hungry for practical results, apart from poetical results, to call upon
spirits of terror and compulsion; to move Acheron in despair of bending
the Gods. There is always a sort of dim idea that these darker powers
will really do things, with no nonsense about it. In the interior
psychology of the Punic peoples this strange sort of pessimistic
practicality had grown to great proportions. In the New Town, which the
Romans called Carthage, as in the parent cities of Phoenicia, the god
who got things done bore the name of Moloch, who was perhaps identical
with the other deity whom we know as Baal, the Lord. The Romans did not
at first quite know what to call him or what to make of him; they had to
go back to the grossest myth of Greek or Roman origins and compare him
to Saturn devouring his children. But the worshippers of Moloch were not
gross or primitive. They were members of a mature and polished
civilisation, abounding in refinements and luxuries; they were probably
far more civilised than the Romans. And Moloch was not a myth; or at any
rate his meal was not a myth. These highly civilised people really met
together to invoke the blessing of heaven on their empire by throwing
hundreds of their infants into a large furnace. We can only realise the
combination by imagining a number of Manchester merchants with
chimney-pot hats and mutton-chop whiskers, going to church every Sunday
at eleven o'clock to see a baby roasted alive.

The first stages of the political or commercial quarrel can be followed
in far too much detail, precisely because it is merely political or
commercial. The Punic Wars looked at one time as if they would never
end; and it is not easy to say when they ever began. The Greeks and the
Sicilians had already been fighting vaguely on the European side against
the African city. Carthage had defeated Greece and conquered Sicily.
Carthage had also planted herself firmly in Spain; and between Spain and
Sicily the Latin city was contained and would have been crushed; if the
Romans had been of the sort to be easily crushed. Yet the interest of
the story really consists in the fact that Rome was crushed. If there
had not been certain moral elements as well as the material elements,
the story would have ended where Carthage certainly thought it had
ended. It is common enough to blame Rome for not making peace. But it
was a true popular instinct that there could be no peace with that sort
of people It is common enough to blame the Roman for his Delenda est
Carthago; Carthage must be destroyed. It is commoner to forget that, to
all appearance, Rome itself was destroyed. The sacred savour that hung
round Rome for ever, it is too often forgotten, clung to her partly
because she had risen suddenly from the dead. Carthage was an
aristocracy, as are most of such mercantile states. The pressure of the
rich on the poor was impersonal as well as irresistible. For such
aristocracies never permit personal government, which is perhaps why
this one was jealous of personal talent. But genius can turn up
anywhere, even in a governing class. As if to make the world's supreme
test as terrible as possible, it was ordained that one of the great
houses of Carthage should produce a man who came out of those gilded
palaces with all the energy and originality of Napoleon coming from
nowhere. At the worst crisis of the war Rome learned that Italy itself,
by a military miracle, was invaded from the north. Hannibal, the Grace
of Baal as his name ran in his own tongue, had dragged a ponderous chain
of armaments over the starry solitudes of the Alps; and pointed
southward to the city which he had been pledged by all his dreadful gods
to destroy.


Hannibal marched down the road to Rome, and the Romans who rushed to war
with him felt as if they were fighting with a magician. Two great armies
sank to right and left of him into the swamps of the Trebia; more and
more were sucked into the horrible whirlpool of Cannae; more and more
went forth only to fall in ruin at his touch. The supreme sign of all
disasters, which is treason, turned tribe after tribe against the
falling cause of Rome, and still the unconquerable enemy rolled nearer
and nearer to the city; and following their great leader the swelling
cosmopolitan army of Carthage passed like a pageant of the whole world;
the elephants shaking the earth like marching mountains and the gigantic
Gauls with their barbaric panoply and the dark Spaniards girt in gold
and the brown Numidians on their unbridled desert horses wheeling and
darting like hawks, and whole mobs of deserters and mercenaries and
miscellaneous peoples; and the grace of Baal went before them.


The Roman augurs and scribes who said in that hour that it brought forth
unearthly prodigies, that a child was born with the head of an elephant
or that stars fell down like hailstones, had a far more philosophical
grasp of what had really happened than the modern historian who can see
nothing in it but a success of strategy concluding a rivalry in
commerce. Something far different was felt at the time and on the spot,
as it is always felt by those who experience a foreign atmosphere
entering their own like a fog or a foul savour. It was no mere military
defeat, it was certainly no mere mercantile rivalry, that filled the
Roman imagination with such hideous omens of nature herself becoming
unnatural. It was Moloch upon the mountain of the Latins, looking with
his appalling face across the plain; it was Baal who trampled the
vineyards with his feet of stone; it was the voice of Tanit the
invisible, behind her trailing veils, whispering of the love that is
more horrible than hate. The burning of the Italian cornfields, the ruin
of the Italian vines, were some thing more than actual; they were
allegorical. They were the destruction of domestic and fruitful things,
the withering of what was human before that inhumanity that is far
beyond the human thing called cruelty. The household gods bowed low in
darkness under their lowly roofs; and above them went the demons upon a
wind from beyond all walls, blowing the trumpet of the Tramontane. The
door of the Alps was broken down; and in no vulgar but a very solemn
sense, it was Hell let loose. The war of the gods and demons seemed
already to have ended; and the gods were dead. The eagles were lost, the
legions were broken; and in Rome nothing remained but honour and the
cold courage of despair.


In the whole world one thing still threatened Carthage, and that was
Carthage. There still remained the inner working of an element strong in
all successful commercial states, and the presence of a spirit that we
know. There was still the solid sense and shrewdness of the men who
manage big enterprises; there was still the advice of the best financial
experts; there was still business government; there was still the broad
and sane outlook of practical men of affairs, and in these things could
the Romans hope. As the war trailed on to what seemed its tragic end,
there grew gradually a faint and strange possibility that even now they
might not hope in vain. The plain business men of Carthage, thinking as
such men do in terms of living and dying races, saw clearly that Rome
was not only dying but dead The war was over; it was obviously hopeless
for the Italian city to resist any longer, and inconceivable that
anybody should resist when it was hopeless. Under these circumstances,
another set of broad, sound business principles remained to be
considered. Wars were waged with money, and consequently cost money;
perhaps they felt in their hearts, as do so many of their kind, that
after all war must be a little wicked because it costs money. The time
had now come for peace; and still more for economy. The messages sent by
Hannibal from time to time asking for reinforcements were a ridiculous
anachronism; there were much more important things to attend to now. It
might be true that some consul or other had made a last dash to the
Metaurus, had killed Hannibal's brother and flung his head, with Latin
fury, into Hannibal's camp; and mad actions of that sort showed how
utterly hopeless the Latins felt about their cause. But even excitable
Latins could not be so mad as to cling to a lost cause for ever. So
argued the best financial experts; and tossed aside more and more
letters, full of rather queer alarmist reports. So argued and acted the
great Carthaginian Empire. That meaningless prejudice, the curse of
commercial states, that stupidity is in some way practical and that
genius is in some way futile, led them to starve and abandon that great
artist in the school of arms, whom the gods had given them in vain.


Why do men entertain this queer idea that what is sordid must always
overthrow what is magnanimous; that there is some dim connection between
brains and brutality, or that it does not matter if a man is dull so
long as he is also mean? Why do they vaguely think of all chivalry as
sentiment and all sentiment as weakness? They do it because they are,
like all men, primarily inspired by religion. For them, as for all men,
the first fact is their notion of the nature of things; their idea about
what world they are living in. And it is their faith that the only
ultimate thing is fear and therefore that the very heart of the world is
evil. They believe that death is stronger than life, and therefore dead
things must be stronger than living things; whether those dead things
are gold and iron and machinery or rocks and rivers and forces of
nature. It may sound fanciful to say that men we meet at tea-tables or
talk to at garden-parties are secretly worshippers of Baal or Moloch.
But this sort of commercial mind has its own cosmic vision and it is the
vision of Carthage. It has in it the brutal blunder that was the ruin of
Carthage. The Punic power fell because there is in this materialism a
mad indifference to real thought. By disbelieving in the soul, it comes
to disbelieving in the mind. Being too practical to be moral, it denies
what every practical soldier calls the moral of an army. It fancies that
money will fight when men will no longer fight. So it was with the Punic
merchant princes. Their religion was a religion of despair, even when
their practical fortunes were hopeful. How could they understand that
the Romans could hope even when their fortunes were hopeless? Their
religion was a religion of force and fear; how could they understand
that men can still despise fear even when they submit to force? Their
philosophy of the world had weariness in its very heart; above all they
were weary of warfare; how should they understand those who still wage
war even when they are weary of it? In a word, how should they
understand the mind of Man, who had so long bowed down before mindless
things, money and brute force and gods who had the hearts of beasts?
They awoke suddenly to the news that the embers they had disdained too
much even to tread out were again breaking everywhere into flames; that
Hasdrubal was defeated, that Hannibal was outnumbered, that Scipio had
carried the war into Spain; that he had carried it into Africa. Before
the very gates of the golden city Hannibal fought his last fight for it
and lost; and Carthage fell as nothing has fallen since Satan. The name
of the New City remains only as a name. There is no stone of it left
upon the sand. Another war was indeed waged before the final
destruction: but the destruction was final. Only men digging in its deep
foundation centuries after found a heap of hundreds of little skeletons,
the holy relics of that religion. For Carthage fell because she was
faithful to her own philosophy and had followed out to its logical
conclusion her own vision of the universe. Moloch had eaten his
children.

Spread The Grades

H/T American Power

Is This What Progressives Mean by New Civility?

If it is, I don't want anything to do with it. Yep, I don't want any parts of their version of "civility" at all.  Progressives showed up in Wisconsin (and other places) by all appearances looking like adults but acted totally out of character for adults.  These "adults" had to be wearing some costumes or something because these peoples' actions and words were more in line with that of a 4 year olds words and actions.  They acted more like irrational beings having a temper tantrum, who didn't know how to act like civilized human beings, as if they were raised in an alternate uncivilized society.  Here are examples of progressives coming unhinged, acting like childish brats who aren't able to have their way, shouting vulgarities, who are shouting absurdities acting both nuts and angry while trying to disrupt a tea party gathering.

Why do these loons insist on crashing our Tea Party?  Do you see tea party members go and try to disrupt pro-union or progressive events? I don't think so.  Conservatives act like mature adults while progressives act like whiny children. 


This man acts like a 2 year old. 


Language Alert!  This video has profanity and displays what is wrong with the entitlement mentality of the Left.  And, the Left wonders why we call them unpatriotic? This is what happens when one is led to believe you can have your cake and eat it too. 


This video is of liberals acting like unhinged lunatics.  How immature... 


Beck has some thoughts on the above incidences of outlandish behavior.  He asks Are we Americans or are we turning into monsters? 

Ed Schultz - The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Here is Ed Schultz spewing his hatred for conservatives:

Ed called conservatives “evil” at the one nation “working together” rally. He and other progressives make the unfounded accusation that conservatives are “evil” He also claims that conservatives don’t want to follow the constitution. Plus, he said that conservatives want to change this country. Like Obama’s whole mantra during his presidential campaign calling for “hope and change” somehow didn’t call for “change”. Okay, this guy is off his rocker, delusional. Was Ed in some kind of psychosis during the 2008 campaign? Nah, he believes changing from capitalism to socialism is good.

He is right about conservatives wanting to change the country . Conservatives are for returning to the principles instilled by our Founding Fathers. We are for getting back to our constitution. Conservatives believe that “all men are created equal”, and that includes those that aren’t able to speak for themselves, like the unborn.

This sad and pathetic man thinks that we’re “evil” when the liberals are the ones that make compromises with the devil. They are “pro-choice” and have been advocating for the infanticide of our children since before Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973. Progressives advocate for pulling the plug on grandma - euthanasia. Conservatives stand up for those most vulnerable and their right to live while progressives prey on weak and innocent human beings. The Democratic Party is the party of death.

As for the accusation about conservatives not following the constitution, this is equally obnoxious coming from a self-proclaimed progressive. The progressive movement is about moving beyond the constitution. The constitution is what their trying to “progress” beyond and away from. They want to move America beyond the stage of being a representative republic. They want a social democracy. The constitution, as they understand it, is not the permanent law of the land but a “living document“ that can and should evolve into something entirely different from our Founders’ principles. Ed makes these absurd claims about conservatives. HotAir points out just how polarizing Ed Schultz is. Ed Schultz calling conservatives “evil” and disrespectful of the constitution is like “the pot calling the kettle black.”

Liberals and Muslims Paths Converge

I have been thinking about how much both liberals and Muslims have been working together lately.  Both of their paths seem to converge and now they are working in concert to impose intolerance on other religions such as traditional Christianity and the Jewish faith or those religious peoples' that do not follow the religion of Islam. I mean before this Ground Zero Mosque debate, when have you ever heard or seen liberals defending any person's right to religion?  Liberals are usually attacking Christianity and shouting "separation of Church and State" from the rooftops, pushing the secularization of America to the enth degree, but for some reason now they are defending the Muslims and the religion of Islam when that particular religion was either perverted or correctly applied when 19 Muslims murdered 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001 only a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.  But, separation of Church and State means absolutely nothing to liberals in this intance.

Liberals want to "transform" America and destroy all that America is from within, while Muslims want to destroy the West, especially America, from the outside and create a Caliphate.  Both liberals and Muslims want to destroy America and make it their own -albeit in different ways- but they are committed to working together to destroy America. And, that is where their paths converge, to destroy America by working together to dismantle any trace amounts of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, and our Republic.    

Just recently I found an article written by Michael Youssef that exposes a writer on an Arab website who proceeded to explain to her Arabic readers about the Unitarian Church and many “other Christian denominations,” referring mainly to mainline denominations, and why Muslims should be supportive of them.


She said they are not like those “traditional Christians” who believe in the divinity of Christ. They, like us “Muslims,” believe that Jesus was just a good prophet: ‘To be sure, they do not believe in Mohammad as the true prophet of Allah, but we can get along with them.”

Then, Michael Youssef points out, yet, one more reason why both Muslims and liberals, or Muslims, Unitarians and the liberal mainline denominations are working together -- they all reject Biblical truth.

We must stop both liberals and Muslims

from destroying America!!!

Caeser Obama and His Empire of Progressive Leftist-Fascists

This is a great article by James Lewis of the American Thinker :

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin's (and worldwide communism's) embrace of Hitler's Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah. Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out "Khaibar! Khaibar!" as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out "Khaibar!" because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed's own Auschwitz. That doesn't leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is "Khaibar." The media always forget to tell us that part.

Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are. The Left isn't Communist any more, they are "progressive" -- which leaves the rest of us back in 1776. "Progressives" always know which way to find "progress," and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you're not "progressive" you must be an enemy of "progress."

The radical Left hasn't changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.

The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It's the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same. Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there's nothing new there, and they are certainly not "progressive." They are a throwback.

Obama doesn't look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn't recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.

So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The "Left" equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.

Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists -- meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That's Obama's real beef against us, and it's why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all "patriots" in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains. And they all despise MacDonald's hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs. America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It's all for our own good.
CONTINUED

Social Justice: Catholic Doctrine Versus Progressive Perversion

Kyle, a blogger friend who has drifted over to the Dark Side and has pledged allegiance to Leftists has posted a couple paragraphs of a column written by Rev. James Martin S.J. on social justice and helping the poor. Here is yet another instance of Kyle in his usual naiveté refusing to face reality and come to grips with the fact that social justice is being perverted. He gives the entire social justice crowd the benefit of the doubt without question, while on the other hand he questions the motives of others who disagree with him on other moral issues. Kyle ignored everything past my first question and acted dumb when he responded to my first question. Since he didn't address the totality of my questions it seems like he may okay with the perverted form of "social justice".  For a postmodernist Kyle sure has a lot of faith in the words of that phrase. Didn't Ricoeur encourage a hermeneutic of suspicion?



If Rev. James Martin S. J. ("social justice") really did mean for his title to be taken literally then that title was a scurrilous lie. I am inclined to believe that he didn’t want people to take the title of his post literally and assume that Beck literally told Jesus to drop dead. But even then that title was an irresponsibly scandalous, and gratuitously blasphemous rhetorical stunt as well as a cheap shot. Father is way off base. Glenn Beck was not advocating for people to abandon the poor. If Rev. Martin actually posted the entire transcript of Glenn Beck’s radio program in which Beck discussed social justice you will see that Beck differentiates between the perverted, morphed, leftist, good feeling version of social justice from the gospel of social justice that promotes charity and speaking up for the poor, which Beck advocates. I am posting the full transcript of what Glenn Beck verbalized on his radio program:



Here is Glenn Beck responding to progressives like Rev. James Martin S.J. ("social justice") who took his words out of context:











If an individual believes in the form of social justice which refers to charity and helping the poor according to Catholic social teaching or Thomistic metaphysics that is fine. But, if you believe in the type of social justice that has been perverted by the likes of Father Coughlin who ascribed to this definition of social justice as given by Wikipedia:


Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system-- then I agree with Beck. Run for the hills, away from your Church, as far away as you can get from that Church. So, yes, if a particular parish Catholic Church is teaching this type of social justice, either try and change their perverted notions as to what constitutes the real meaning of social justice which the Catholic church and others’ in our society have followed for over 2000 years or leave that Church and find a Catholic Church that espouses the principles of how the Bible teaches social justice. Even John Rawl’s theory on social justice, which states -- "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others." -- is too conservative in my opinion.

While Father Martin was right in pointing out the Church teaching below, many progressives today take this particular teaching to the extreme, isolating it as the sole teaching on social justice by the Catholic Church while excluding other teachings on social justice.

"Catholic social teaching, like much philosophical reflection, distinguishes three dimensions of basic justice: commutative justice, distributive justice, and social justice. Commutative justice calls for fundamental fairness in all agreements and exchanges between individuals or private social groups Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet... Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way." U.S. Bishops. Economic Justice for All (1986) 68-71.

"What the Catholic Church teaches and declares regarding the social life and relationships of men is beyond question for all time valid. The cardinal point of this teaching is that individual men are necessarily the foundation, cause, and end of all social institutions." Pope John XXIII, On Christianity and Social Progress (1961) 218-19.
"The norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan and will, it should harmonize with the genuine good of the human race, and allow men as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it." Vatican II, Church in the Modern World (1965) 35.

Here is the Church’s teaching on subsidiarity:

"It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry .So, too, it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies. Inasmuch as every social activity should, by its very nature, prove a help to members of the body social, it should never destroy or absorb them." Pope Pius XI. On Reconstructing the Social Order (1931) 79.

Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. points out that one of the seven social teachings of Catholic social teaching is to promote the family. He points out that “Social conditions either contribute to the stabilization or the destabilization of family structures. Social conditions that destabilize include mandatory and unreasonably long work hours, a toxic "social culture" that denigrates fidelity, legal dissolution of the definition of marriage between one man and one woman, and excessive taxation.” Kaczor also points out how Pope John Paul II promotes a healthy balance of States responsibility to help the securing of the common good and avoiding becoming a welfare or a “nanny-state” which offers cradle to grave security.

Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum even takes on the issue of socialists promoting a class warfare. Pope Leo XIII states, “To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.”


"It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life."


"What is of far greater moment, however, is the fact that the remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own."


"The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races... private ownership is in accordance with the law of nature. … and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right."


"And in addition to injustice, it is only too evident what an upset and disturbance there would be in all classes, and to how intolerable and hateful a slavery citizens would be subjected. The door would be thrown open to envy, to mutual invective, and to discord; the sources of wealth themselves would run dry, for no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry; and that ideal equality about which they entertain pleasant dreams would be in reality the levelling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found."


"These three important benefits, however, can be reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair."

Glenn Beck Exposes Progressive Lies, Progressive Joe Klein & Liberal Mental Gymnastics

H/T goes to The Right Scoop