Are Malloy and his twin orifices Fudrucker and Bob Horton ignorant Flukes or merely disingenuous commie rats?

There’s a hole in this argument

Both have wrung their hands publicly the past few days, bemoaning Republican Scott Frantz’s denounciation of “social justice”  a term that, as defined today, has nothing to do with the principles on which this country was founded.

Frantz: “The Democrats: How fundamentally un-American of them to push for concepts such as social justice. “I’d like to coin what I think might be a new term tonight and that is opportunity justice. That is fundamentally American.”

These words sent Greenwich Democrats aflutter because someone has criticized and exposed their primary goal:

“Social justice is what ended the poll tax”, Fudrucker moaned, “and moved Rosey Grier from the back of the bus. Frantz’s cold hearted callousness, his indifference to bigotry and yea, even slavery itself, disqualifies him from holding public office”. [note from his business partner  and Dan Rather – this is a rough paraphrasing of his histrionic comments]

Horton was equally appalled:

He did not call the concept of social justice un-American. He labeled all Democrats un-American for advocating the idea. In this era when every politician has to wear an American flag lapel pin or run the risk of being called un-patriotic, our state senator’s painting his political opponents as un-American was an abrupt departure from his normally civil campaign style.

While I might amend Horton’s interpretation of Frantz’s remarks to a condemnation of all Democrats who advocate radical social justice, I suppose these days, the one includes the other. What it does not include or refer to is the concept of social justice Malloy, Fudcuker and Horton claim to treasure: compulsory union membership, rural electrification and the Hoover Dam: the term “social justice” has an entirely different meaning than that which our local Democrats pretend to understand  (and which I think they do).

Here’s what an academic liberal blog has to say on the subject.

The very term of “Social Justice” was first expressed in 1840 by a Sicilian priest.  The concept and the need for social responsibilities existed long before but as in all of history, a label and definition was necessary to fully express the issue….

Eventually Social Justice was a label used to plead social reform for peasants who were displaced or uprooted and whom became the urban workers….

It’s about benefiting society’s collective interests, human rights, social equality and providing equal resources to the foundation of what it means to not only be alive but to progress both socially, intellectually and monetarily for and by free individuals.

Present day Social Justice & Current Issues

Social equality and justice for all has evolved and the definition, terms surrounding the very thought or notion have adapted to accommodate the past and the present.  John Rawls is a well known moral political philosopher who wrote the 1971 “A Theory of Social Justice” and presented us with this quote:

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”

Another section of that same blog discusses eduction:

Home life?  How can that be, parents are teaching children the same values are they not?  Lead by example is a coined phrase that parents tend to stick to.  However, parents may be neglecting the race social justice issues while conversing with their children.  Choosing the easy way out and describing all races as equals isn’t enough.  Children need to understand from their parents that all people are created equal.  Social equality can begin in an education system but it has to be followed through at home, with the parents.

Does that sound like an endorsement of the abolishment of the poll tax to you? I’ll bet even Frankie doesn’t think so.

Not that you’d want to waste your time, but a quick Googling of the term “Social Justice” turns up page after page of what Scott Frantz was talking about and what Governor Malloy and his Greenwich Democrats are talking about:


Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “Are Malloy and his twin orifices Fudrucker and Bob Horton ignorant Flukes or merely disingenuous commie rats?

  1. Westchesterer

    A poll tax would be genius. I say, 100$.

  2. Georgie

    This seems to me as an ingenious way to divert discussion on what’s on everyone’s minds—jobs, the economy, entitlement reform, and burdensome taxes and regulations.

  3. cos cobber

    Absolutely right Georgie. The dems are masters of distraction and their favorite all-time ever-reliable distraction conversation is abortion. When real policy discussion is not going your way just start talking abortion.

  4. Walt

    Dude –
    The Democratic party of today is nothing but a bunch of socialists. Especially Barry. Listen to this guy, who would know:

    Anyhows, tonight is the fifth and final debate, right? I think it is focused on foreign policy. So here are the questions I think they should ask on how each candidate proposes to deal with the unwashed heathen commies and camel jockeys:

    If nuking the ENTIRE Middle East, including Cos Cob, would ensure eternal world peace, would you do it? If not, why? You loser.
    Do you think it is appropriate for the President of The United States to bow down to anyone? If so why? Who do you dislike more, the gooks, the ruskies, or the slums, and why? You need to pick only one.
    Is dealing with Canada considered foreign policy, or do we just treat them like our idiot redheaded stepchild, and assume we can just bitch slap them to do whatever we want?

    Many Americans, especially those in the Southwest, are concerned about the seemingly endless wet back invasion. Some elected officials claim we lack the funds to deal with this. Would you support putting drones on the border, and letting the folks in Texas and Arizona use the internet – FOR FREE!!! – to mow the little bastards down, right from their own computer? Just like World of Warfare, but for real!! We can actually CHARGE them to play and make a profit!! Would you support that? And actually I like the idea so much will you outsource it to me?

    Should paranoid nuts like that Iranian rug maker Amiascrazyasilook get to develop nukes? If not, why? After all, we let Nixon have them.

    Chavez, Castro and Putin have all indicated support for President Obama’s reelection. What does that tell you?

    What is your policy for dealing with space aliens? Have you ever met one? If not, please contact Chris Fountain. Ole’s Creek. Greenwich Ct. Then you will understand the challenges you face. He is a Grey, with the huge head and large almond eyes.

    As President, when you meet Kate Middleton, The Duchess of Dork, would you greet her by cupping her ass and slipping her the tongue? If not, why? I certainly WOOD!!

    What would you ask?
    Your Pal,

  5. FF

    Whatever. again, knickers in a twist about ensuring you can define things in a way that makes you feel superior even in the sources are News Max and Hannity. Hence the thousands of man hours devoted to your post to ensure you find the “facts” that suit your argument. What Scott said was, in my mind, indefensible, as it shows that – in my opinion – things that are the bedrock of our national differential such as respect and care for the less fortunate, righting of wrongs. You’d rather hoot, again, about the bogeyman under the bed, with a few insults thrown in. Why are you and your ilk so afraid with the clutching of the pearls and the wetting of the pants and so on? I suppose its the Kenyan Marxist Socialist and his secret plan to send you to EPA torture camps in black helicopters. Odd, and scary considering the fact that the black usurper may be your fearless leader for another 4 years.

  6. Balzac

    Man’s rights are given by his nature. As the Declaration of Independence says, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” Notice that these rights, the real ones, don’t come from government.

    Liberals and progressives want to nominate many other “rights”, such as the right to a fair wage, housing, education, health care, and several more rights to be discovered in the future. This new batch of rights go by the catch-phrase “social justice”. They can ONLY be granted by an active, expanding government. The progressives won’t recognize that when government tries to provide these new rights, a) it will gradually fail at securing the first batch, and b) it will gradually go bankrupt. We are observing a) and b).

    Thanks, Scott Frantz for noticing this.

  7. Anonymous

    From the American Left, Social Justice is a code word for cultural Marxism. Social Justice is a code word to make totalitarian government more palatable to the soft hands, soft heads, and soft hearts of limo liberals, to the lazy who live off the labor of others, and to fill the empty spirits and minds of the ignorant. Social justice is cover for the tyrannical ambitions of the cynical and politically venal: the redistributionists, the Obamas, Valerie Jarretts, Jim Himes, Malloys, Fudruckers, and Bob Owens of this world, the legion of university academics, the unions, and the purveyors of mainstream media.

    The most fundamental American political compact is the United States Constitution and its foundation of unalienable God given rights which no government may appropriate. The Progressive aim is the supplanting of the Constitution with their totalitarian big government; their method to date is subversive encroachment and perverse interpretation.

    Approximately every 80 years, a saeculum, the United States has faced a fundamental crisis of identity and direction. Beginning with the shots fired on behalf of Liberty at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, to Lincoln’s Federalist power grab during the War Between the States, to FDR’s New Deal when his disastrous Big Government Keynesianism was “bailed out” by World War II, this greatest of all nations has faced crisis.

    The most recent saeculum, the Progressive era of Big Government ushered in by FDR, is in crisis. The Progressives’ straw men, the obfuscation, Alinsky’s rules meet increasing resistance. The Progressives are down to lying and distraction, because the truth of their record is disaster.

    Malloy, Fudrucker, Bob Owen, and the rest of their Progressive ilk are disingenuous Commie Rats.

  8. Westchesterer

    The problem with “everyone deserves (insert words)” is 16 trillion dollars of debt and the economic inefficiencies cause by the government redistribution of wealth.

    The chickens are coming home to roost.

  9. cos cobber

    FF, lets get back on topic. How is Obama going to deal with the deficit and you are not allowed to refer to the Republicans at any capacity in your answer. Focus only on what the democratic party would do over the next four years.

  10. Anonymous

    Frankie Fudrucker and Bob Horton’s Commie cohorts have a complicit media aiding them in a dishonest framing of the deficit question.

    Barry the Liar pushes the meme of having the rich pay their fair share, when the truth is, the Dems are stealing from future generations to fund their failures of today. Democrats are stealing from children on a massive scale.

    The deficit amount now is so large, the Dems aren’t primarily fighting the Repubs, they are fighting basic math.

    Government is so broken and dishonest, it’s beyond contemptible and disgusting.

  11. Westchesterer

    Hold on. This is not Democrats vs Republicans. Republicans are as guilty, or more guilty, for the dramatic increase in the national debt. I can’t take anyone seriously when they howl at Democrats and exempt Republicans as if they’ve all along held to small government principles. Bill Clinton is the only president since Carter who presided over a decrease in the debt relative to the GDP. The Republicans and Democrats are both Keynesian jokers.

    Will Romney decrease the size of government like he claims? I would be astonished if this happened. But we won’t know for a while.

    Will he formally label China a currency manipulator? We’ll know on the second day, if he wins.

    Will he ditch Bernanke and stop the printing press? We’ll find out in 2014.

    I’m almost ready to give him a chance. Why? I know Obama won’t change abandon Keynesian policies. I think that Romney won’t reject Keynesianism, but I’m not sure. Therefore, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  12. CatoRenasci

    The blogger is as big an idiot as FF and Bob Horton.
    John Rawls’ book is A Theory of Justice, not A Theory of Social Justice. The point being that the idiot obviously had not read the book he was blogging about. (The quote starts on the bottom of the first page of the text proper!) In fact, it’s really only a point against utilitarianism, not (necessarily) natural rights theories of justice. But, I digress…. Rawls’ whole schtick is something approach an equal distribution based on his rather ridiculous ‘original position’ thought experiment and his notion of “justice as fairness” sounds very “nice” but doesn’t work. Typical academic nonsense and not nearly so convincing as Hume. Robert Nozick wrote rather a better book on Justice called Anarchy, State and Utopia in answer to Rawls.

    The only think worse than naive intellectuals like Rawls are their epigoni who aren’t even diligent enough to read the serious books, and probably too stupid to understand what they’re not reading (that is, reading only in canned short precis

    Looters! A pox on them.

  13. Riverside

    I thought Bob Horton’s column (which I often like) was very unfair to Scott Frantz. Scott is a terrific guy, and about the farthest from displaying “aristocratic” tendencies than anyone I know. And while Scott did inherit a lot of money, he turned it into a lot more money, while finding a way to be one of the most generous people in town (and is always done quietly with little fanfare). Many others would have wasted the money and not done nearly so much public good. Scott is a great person and is to be admired.

  14. Balzac

    Anonymous at 10.35: yours is a great post.

  15. Anonymous

    @ Balzac.
    Thank you.