Social Justice General ‘Bad Dog’ Mattis Claims Trump A Threat

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By Kelly OConnell —— Bio and Archives—June 7, 2020

INTRO: IMPETUOUS SECRETARY ESPER

President Trump was slammed by two US Defense Secretaries over threats to use Fed intervention against George Floyd riots. Current Sec. Defense Esper and former Sec. Defense Gen. Jim Mattis both hit Trump for referencing the Insurrection Act. Mattis, in midst of widespread looting, violence and murder, still blithely supports “protests” with Obama. The sly retired general even cited Nazis. Is Mattis a fair and unbiased warrior-king? Actually, Trump notedhis Dem Party leanings, before parting ways over the Iran Treaty. But the goal here is to humiliate Trump to cripple him during the Floyd riots so American Social Justice triumphs and Joe Biden prevails.

Defense Sec Esper: More Woke Than Rip Van Winkle?

By televised speech, obtuse Defense Sec. Esper rejected Trump’s threat of the Insurrection Act against urban rioting. Criticizing Floyd’s death, Esper stated the military opposed racism. But what of violence and deaths across America? Why publicly air opposition to Trump? Finally, don’t threats work better without stating they are unavailable? It’s unseemly for Esper to oppose Trump publicly. Amazingly, Esper claims the US Military exists to wipe out all hatred. Really?!!

…expressing our outrage at what happened, expressing our commitment to the Constitution, expressing our commitment as an institution to—to end racism and hatred in all its forms, and just a general expression with regard to what the department is about.”

GEN MATTIS: LEFTWING CHARACTER ASSASSIN

Gen ‘Cheapshot’ Mattis

Meanwhile, crusty military fossil Gen. Mattis gutshot Trump, claiming constitutional dangers of stateside military action. Yet, his essay is not persuasive. Does Mattis really oppose the US military saving women, children and men from assaults, arson and murder?  Why is “allowing protests” the “right” choice when tens of thousands are in danger? Yet despite Mattis’ blase’ attitude, riots are causing “‘the most costly civil disorder in United States history.” With 10,000 arrests, violent attacks and murders, and economic loss in the billions. Mattis calls these a  “small number of lawbreakers.”

Yet, mobs still rage unimpeded across America as looting spirals amidst cityscapes bathed in flames. Frankly, in every liberal led city, the failure to deploy the National Guard has multiplied chaos and damage. But Mattis is dead wrong since the Insurrection Act was used in the Rodney King riots without harm. So if Mattis cares so much about America—Why doesn’t he mention all the national victims, some beaten or shot to death?

Here is the law:

Insurrection Act

252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the US in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Mattis Simply Delivers Political Hit 

Instead of constitutional crisis, Mattis highlights a policy disagreement, over Trump’s pro- American-safety standard versus Mattis’ Social Justice mirage. In fact, Republicans previously complained of “warrior” Mattis’ real liberalism. He abandons riot victims simply to score points with leftist buddies, like former Chief of Staff John Kelly, who backstabs Trump claiming we must “choose better candidates”—like Obama? Here are Mattis’ words:

I watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand — one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values — our values as people and our values as a nation.

HISTORY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

Roots of Woke Culture

So, what are the roots of “Social Justice”? Michael Rectenwald claims in “Springtime for Snowflakes: “Social Justice” and Its Postmodern Parentage”—“Social justice gestated within the university as postmodern theory ruled the roost. It was nursed during the Occupy movement and the Obama era.” And, “Contemporary social justice embodies postmodern theoretical notions as well as the latter’s adoption of Maoist and Stalinist disciplinary methods.”

Catholic Roots of Social Justice

Before this, Social Justice traces back into Catholicism, especially Liberation Theology. Leftists grafted this into a secular setting. Social Justice entered the political lexicon via John Rawls’ book, A Theory of Justice,in 1971. Thomas Patrick Burke, in The Origins of Social Justice, writes

““Social justice” has been mainly a religious conception, in the sense that it originated in religious circles, underwent a large part of its conceptual development in official statements of religious authorities, and has been adopted most enthusiastically by the members of religious organizations. Since 1931 it has been part of the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Hayek: Social Justice is a Meaningless Conception

F. A. wrote The Mirage of Social Justice, arguing Social Justice is an empty phrase. He states, “Everybody talks about social justice, but if you ask people exactly what they mean by social justice, what they accept as justice, nobody knows. I’ve been trying for the last twenty years, asking people ‘What exactly are your principles?’”

Likewise, when America’s highest ranking soldiers attempt to adopt Social Justice, they make a mockery of logic and become asinine public pests demanding all officials adopt their convictions. The US Military would be better served to adopt the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—except when killing our enemies.