Social Equality is not Social Justice

 

Social Equality is not Social Justice

Since the 1970’s the term social justice has been vastly understood as a liberal secular political philosophy. It is an invention of the well-meaning but misinformed, liberals who look to government as the ‘great equalizer’. But for political conservatives and Biblical Christians, justice is an individual reward for an individual’s efforts. One person’s needs do not automatically create a duty on the part of any other person to fulfill. (Exception: when there exists a fiduciary duty)

“ There is simply no such thing as "social" justice. Whatever those who rely on this cliched phrase are aiming at has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. Justice is meted out at the level of the suffering individual. “(Dr. Jordan Peterson)

Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963 quote, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”  Dr. King's message was about equal opportunity for individuals regardless of race.

“The classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can’t deduce from this that because people are unequal you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that’s what social justice amounts to. It’s a demand that the state should treat people differently in order to place them in the same position. . . .To make people equal a goal of governmental policy would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.” (Economist F.A. Hayeck) watch Interview at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnMd40dqBlQ)

This is the fundamental question of our time and the source of most of our political discord: should we treat people equally or treat them differently based on their race, gender, or class to correct collective imbalances in “wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society”? (Jonathan Miltimore, former Senior Creative Strategist of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.  )

Chuck Colson tells of an exercise they did in the prisons when he was a prison fellowship. They took 10 inmates and 10 CEOs who were guests of the prison fellowship for that day. Then they lined them all up together, and they said, if your family if your family had two parents living under the same roof, take one step back. If your family had more than 50 books in your home, Take one step back. If your family had previous generations who had gone to college, take one step back.  All the people who were left at the front of the line were the inmates who didn't have any of those factors.

What can we conclude? Race is not the problem.  But those other factors, if you view them together, like geography and where you were raised, the marital status of your parents, and what kind of environment that was, and your social/ cultural inputs…all those things together determine what your outcome will be.  Add to all of this the natural abilities of some individuals, and even the fact that some groups of people share a trait in common that is different than all other groups. We must try to honestly admit the reality of vast differences in specific capabilities of different peoples. If we value liberty, we must be willing to accept the fact that differences in ability, and opportunity, will result in different outcomes.

From a conservative and Biblical point of view, justice is always a matter of individual actions and duties. If someone does something, the relevant question is: Did he, in doing the action, utilize or obligate someone else's private property? If a person gets what he deserves (earned in some way) then justice demands that his reward is commensurate with his efforts. If a person gets something he did NOT earn, then he is either the recipient of someone else’s grace (i.e. a gift), or else he is a thief (i.e. taking what is not his, without permission of the true owner). True Liberty can ONLY happen when we are assured that government will not interfere with our possessions. If government (or anyone else0 takes FROM us what we have earned, without our permission, then that is theft.

Voddie Baucham (recently deceased) has said: “The social justice world is not about justice.” He claims Christians must abandon the term because “I do not think it means what you think it means.” Social justice warriors generally advocate that, in order to achieve equal outcomes, people or groups with disparate abilities are given goods and services that someone else has worked to achieve.  How is this justice, in any rational sense?

FAILED POLICIES

Thomas Sowell:

“Not only do people take credit for things that were not their doing, they overlook the negative things that came in after the 1960s as a result of policy. In 1940, 17% of black children were raised in single-parent homes.

I forget the exact date in the 20th century, but after these wonderful reforms were put in, that quadrupled to 68% of black children were being raised in single-parent homes. Now, there's a whole literature on all the bad things that happen to kids who are raised by single parents. Whether they are black or white, American or British, the studies show the same things. One study said that fatherlessness has a bigger effect than even race and poverty.“

As an economic doctrine, egalitarianism is the driving force behind socialism and communism. It is economic egalitarianism that seeks to remove the barriers of economic inequality by means of redistribution of wealth. We see this implemented in social welfare programs where progressive tax policies take proportionately more money from wealthy individuals in order to raise the standard of living for people who lack the same means. In other words, the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

BIBLICAL EQUALITY

(This section Excerpted from  https://www.gotquestions.org/social-justice.html)

In Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, He mentions caring for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40), and in James’ epistle he expounds on the nature of “true religion” (James 1:27). So, if by “social justice” we mean that society has a moral obligation to care for those less fortunate, then that is correct. God knows that, due to the fall, there will be widows, fatherless and sojourners in society, and He made provisions in the old and new covenants to care for these outcasts of society. The model of such behavior is Jesus Himself, who reflected God’s sense of justice by bringing the gospel message to even the outcasts of society.

However, the Christian notion of social justice is different from the contemporary, secular notion of social justice. The biblical exhortations to care for the poor are more individual than societal. In other words, each Christian is encouraged to do what he can to help the “least of these.” The basis for such biblical commands is found in the second of the greatest commandments—love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39). Today’s politicized notion of social justice replaces the individual with the government, which, through taxation and other means, redistributes wealth. This policy doesn’t encourage giving out of love, but resentment from those who see their hard-earned wealth being taken away.

Another difference is that the Christian worldview of social justice doesn’t assume the wealthy are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gain. Wealth is not evil in a Christian worldview, but there is a responsibility and an expectation to be a good steward of one’s wealth (because all wealth comes from God). Today’s social justice operates under the assumption that the wealthy exploit the poor. A third difference is that, under the Christian concept of stewardship, the Christian can give to the charities he/she wants to support. For example, if a Christian has a heart for the unborn, he can support pro-life agencies with his time, talent and treasure. Under the contemporary form of social justice, it is those in power within the government who decide who receives the redistributed wealth. We have no control over what the government does with our tax money, and, more often than not, that money goes to charities we might not deem worthy.

Justice is a part of God's character

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.” – Deuteronomy 10:18

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is He.” – Deuteronomy 32:4

“The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.” – Psalm 33:5

“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you.” – Psalm 89:14

“Blessed are those who act justly, who always do what is right.” – Psalm 106:3

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” – Proverbs 31:8-9

“Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.” – Proverbs 28:27

Jesus always emphasized that the His followers were to give generously to help the needy. But his ministry was for the church, and NOT civil government. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Micah all lamented that while the people attended worship, observed regulations and took pride in their Bible knowledge, they took advantage of the weak and vulnerable, thereby making their religious activity deeply offensive to God. This is consistent with the New Testament. Jesus adopts the Old Testament prophets’ use of justice as ‘heart-analysis’ – the sign of true faith.

Jesus’ criticism of the religious leaders in Mark 12 and Luke 11:39-42 teaches that a lack of concern for the poor is not a minor oversight but reveals something seriously wrong with one’s spiritual compass. But never in scripture are to trust this ministry to civil government. This is the sole responsibility of the believers- the Church of Jesus Christ. God has given the power of the sword to governments and the power of the keys to churches, and he intends for them to work separately but cooperatively toward the greater end of worship. The two institutions should remain “separate,” in the sense that neither should wield the authority God has given to the other.

A biblically conceived doctrine of the separation of church and state is about jurisdictional authority. It recognizes that God has given one kind of authority to governments (justice) and another kind to churches (ministry), and neither should usurp the other.

The civil government is responsible for administration of the criminal law, the civil law, and the maintenance of public order. The Church is responsible to ‘take care of’ the needs of people in the community, be they physical, or spiritual. Because the needs of the people at the local level are known to the local community, the stewards of the resources available can best ascertain where those resources will be best utilized. Welfare fraud and systemic abuse will be held to an absolute minimum if not eliminated altogether.

The first commandment of God is that we shall have NO OTHER gods before HIM. He is the first and ONLY God to whom we owe allegiance. Since it is the nature of man to worship and follow any entity that provides for his needs, man will have a natural tendency to ’follow’ (give allegiance) to government if that his source of sustenance. To the extent that God is our provider, protector, and our sustainer, we will honor and obey God. But when we receive those things from government, and we become dependent upon government rather than God, then government has become our god.  

CONCLUSION

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. (Mt 22:21)

The term ‘social justice’ is a political philosophy that is the tool of socialism and communism to entice well-meaning people into believing that the government can, and should, redistribute wealth in order to create a ‘level’ economic playing field. It focuses on equality of outcomes, as measured by material wealth. But true justice is only applied to individuals and is based upon the abilities and performance of the individual. Grace is a gift of God. It is the opposite of justice inasmuch as it is ‘unmerited favor’ where a person gets something they did not earn.

The Bible does not speak to the FORM of government that must be implemented but leaves that choice to man. Governments are ordained by God but instituted among men. The American FORM of government is a Federal, Constitutional, Democratic Republic. It is federal in that it has a federal head, administering matters within its jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is LIMITED by the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified by the STATES through the direct participation of the electorate. That is what makes our system democratic. Also by the process of direct election, representatives are selected to make laws that govern everyone. Representative government is what makes us a republic. To properly understand our form of government, you must understand the meanings of all of those key terms. To properly understand the concepts of justice, one must understand what God says on the subject. In order to enjoy the blessings of liberty (per the Declaration), and a sustainable form of government, we must understand apply Biblical terms and principles.

Credits given where known.

Dr. John A. Sterling, MA. JD
October, 2025

 Epsteins Client list.
July 8, 2025
Lots of people are really upset at the trump Administration for seeming to back down on prosecuting the pedophiles from Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and their private island in the US. Virgin Islands. Epstein reportedly committed suicide while in prison and Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. She was convicted on five counts of aiding Epstein in his abuse of underage girls in December 2021. The Trump Administration has promised truth and transparency regarding the investigation of the Epstein files and specifically, a 'client list'.

This might help explain some things.
It is the duty of the legislators to MAKE the laws.
It is the job of Law Enforcement to ENFORCE the laws.
It is the job of the judiciary to JUDGE the law and decide punishment based upon the law itself, as passed by the legislators.
The job of the justice Department, starting with the Attorney General, is to seek justice according to the law. The DOJ initiates investigations, obtains evidence that will likely produce a guilty verdict when the case goes to trial. The DOJ knows the law, understands the courts and the judges that will be hearing these cases. In addition to the requirements of the criminal justice system to present evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the DOJ knows the personal history and the particular proclivities of the federal judiciary. They KNOW which judges are (or could be) corrupted or blackmailed, pressures that could be applied to family members, questionable business holdings, etc. etc. The DOJ (as with any other prosecutor) has to arrive at an honest evaluation of the likelihood of a successful prosecution, given the defense that will be mounted and the judge(s) that will be hearing the case. A good prosecutor knows the holes that a good defense lawyer will poke in the State's case, and the incredible (and make no mistake about it, the life -threatening) pressures that will be brought to bear. They are not going to bring a case that is going to get someone else killed and ruin more lives.

There has been a lot of talk about an actual LIST of patrons (clients/participants, etc.) that engaged in actual sexual relations with minors ( a violation of the law). There seems to be AMPLE objective, reasonable evidence that famous/popular/wealthy and powerful people attended events at Epstein's island resort. We know this from aviation manifests and testimonial evidence.
There are (apparently) volumes of evidence that provide clues as to what went on at that resort. There seems little doubt that these records were hidden by the Biden administration and only released under extreme pressure from the Trump administration.
According to the DOJ, it is this voluminous quantity of files that were on Pam Bondi's desk, and which she (apparently) was led to believe contained the aforementioned actual 'list' that actually CONNECTED specific patrons (client's etc.) to specific criminal acts.

It is no stretch at all to accept that there is NO ACTUAL LIST that connects a specific perpetrator to a specific crime. IF IT IS TRUE that after all of the investigation, and everyone KNOWING what went on, there remains enough of an evidentiary 'gap' that a good attorney would create 'reasonable doubt' as to their clients criminal guilt. Hear me... everyone KNOWS that crimes were committed. We KNOW the names of many (most) of the victims. We can almost certainly place any number of accused persons (defendants) at the location of the crime and at the time(s) of the crime(s). BUT THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to guarantee a conviction of a well-defended (wealthy, powerful, influential) person in what would, with absolute certainty, be an expensive, and drawn out trial.

It is also true that because of the age of the victims, and the social, emotional, and mental damage that would certainly be produced in a public trial (even with safeguards in place) when that testimony comes to light. Then, there are the inevitable (expensive) lawsuits that will come when any person may be found NOT GUILTY after the state's best evidence has been presented but a jury that could not decide BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the accused committed that crime. These are conditions and realities that must be weighed by the DOJ.

We are incensed at the way that the rich and powerful can circumvent the law. We HATE that some of these perpetrators are to avoid justice and thumb their noses at the system. We feel outraged that the victims will not see justice.

Do I believe that this is a miscarriage of justice? You bet I do. Do I think that are people and institutions so powerful that even Donald Trump cannot shake them? You bet I do. Do I think I could withstand the enormous pressures being brought to bear? Only in my vain imagination.

I am not blind to the political realities of the world and of our government. We, the people, lost control of our government a LONG time ago. I am not arrogant enough, or shallow enough, to think that I would do better, or that Trump or anyone in his administration has 'dropped the ball' on this matter. I would like to see a miracle and know that justice is going to be done, but apart from God's divine judgment in God's appointed time, I have adjusted my expectations to the present reality.

The U.S. Criminal Justice system is a GOOD system- the best in the world, I think. It is built on solid principles, that, if followed, will produce justice for most of the people most of the time. This may be one of those times when the Criminal Justice system is simply not enough to see justice done because powerful people with no morals have gained control of the system and exploited its safeguards, creating personal loopholes.

I offer no advice but I do offer this counsel: Stop demanding resignation of officials in this administration who have failed to pull off a miracle. If you are doing that, I suspect you do not comprehend the terrible evil that controls the environment in Washington DC. We have some good people accomplishing very good things against incredible pressure. I DO agree that it is maddening to see the Trump Administration backing away from their earlier narrative. I believe that there is a truth here that is MUCH deeper than is made public and we may never know the whole truth. I Believe that we are NOT getting the 'truth and transparency' we were promised. But I am willing to reserve further judgment on this matter at this time.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.

John Sterling

Due Process and Illegal Aliens accused of criminal offenses

 

Due Process of Law regarding Illegals who are criminally accused

DUE PROCESS in GENERAL

“Basically, all good law is the codification of the wisdom and morality of past ages. It is never safe to deal long with a practical problem without relating it to a moral standard. A more succinct summary would be simply: order and individual liberty. Put in these terms, it is easy to recognize that these principles are frequently in conflict with each other and are never easy to reconcile.

Order has been the keynote of every organized government from the beginning of history. But our American government, while plainly designed to preserve order, made the signal contribution to history by also avowing, as a government objective, the achievement of individual liberty for its citizens.

No one needs to remind me that the statement of the objective has not created the reality. What I am seeking to do is to outline both the importance and the difficulty of the topics we deal with. The nature of liberty is easier to describe than to define. Freedom on the frontier is one thing. Freedom in a metropolis is another. In relation to the man of the frontier, liberty could almost be defined as the right to do without hindrance what one wished. In the big city, liberty can be more accurately referred to as the maximum freedom of choice consistent with the maintenance of similar freedom for the other members of society.”

(https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5366&context=jclc)

CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS

“Due process under the Fourteenth Amendment can be broken down into two categories: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process, based on principles of “fundamental fairness,” addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings. Relevant issues, as discussed in detail below, include notice, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery, basis of decision, and availability of counsel.

States have an inherent “police power” to promote public safety, health, morals, public convenience, and general prosperity, but the extent of the power may vary based on the subject matter over which it is exercised.

[In recent years] two strands of reasoning were developed [by the U.S. Supreme Court]. The first was a view advanced by Justice Field in a dissent in Munn v. Illinois, namely, that state police power is solely a power to prevent injury to the “peace, good order, morals, and health of the community.” This reasoning was adopted by the Court in Mugler v. Kansas, where, despite upholding a state alcohol regulation, the Court held that “[i]t does not at all follow that every statute enacted ostensibly for the promotion of [public health, morals or safety] is to be accepted as a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the state.” The second strand, which had been espoused by Justice Bradley in his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases, tentatively transformed ideas embodying the social compact and natural rights into constitutionally enforceable limitations upon government. The consequence was that the states in exercising their police powers could foster only those purposes of health, morals, and safety which the Court had enumerated, and could employ only such means as would not unreasonably interfere with fundamental natural rights of liberty and property. As articulated by Justice Bradley, these rights were equated with freedom to pursue a lawful calling and to make contracts for that purpose.” (https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/04-due-process-of-law.html)

DUE PROCESS and IMMIGRATION STATUS

Despite the government’s broad power over immigration, the Supreme Court has recognized that aliens who have physically entered the United States generally come under the protective scope of the Due Process Clause, which applies “to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” (Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001); see also Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77 (1976) ( “Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” ); Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 212 (1953)

The Supreme Court, however, has suggested that the extent of due process for aliens present in the United States “may vary depending upon [the alien’s] status and circumstance.” (Zadvydas)

ILLEGAL ALIENS ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES

In Demore v. Kim, however, the Supreme Court in 2003 held that the mandatory detention during the pendency of formal removal proceedings of certain aliens who had committed specified crimes was constitutionally permissible. The Court observed that “Congress may make rules as to aliens that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens,” while also citing its “longstanding view that the Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings . . . .” (id.)

Regarding immediate deportation of illegal aliens, it would seem that the same authority that permits the government to hold a criminally accused person for an extended period of time, would also permit the government not to be required to hold him at all, but rather to return him forthwith to his country of origin. This does not seem to me an unusual or unreasonable power of government.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence indicates that, although aliens present within the United States generally have due process protections, the extent of those constitutional protections may depend on certain factors, including whether the alien has been lawfully admitted or developed ties to the United States, and whether the alien has engaged in specified criminal activity. Therefore, even with regard to aliens present within the United States, the Court has sometimes deferred to Congress’s policy judgments that limit the ability of some classes of aliens to contest their detention or removal. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/removal-of-aliens-who-have-entered-the-united-states)

 

WHY am I writing about this now?

National news: Trump Defied the order of U.S. District judge James Boasberg by deporting two planeloads of criminal gang members.

Trump's advisers contend U.S. District Judge James Boasberg overstepped his authority by issuing an order that blocked the president from deporting about 250 alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789.

I argue that the Judge Boasberg overstepped his authority based on my analysis of Due Process under these circumstances.

Here’s what Blogger Tori Branum (Mar 21, 2025) had to say, “Ever wonder what drives a federal judge to order planes full of illegal immigrants, whom are gang members such as MS13 and Tren De Aragua, to turn back? Maybe it’s because his wife runs an abortion NGO funded by USAID, and his daughter Katherine works for Partners for Justice — a group that serves legal support to those very same criminals, thanks to 76% of their cash flow coming from Uncle Sam!

This organization is like an anti-deportation cheer squad and even boasts about having knocked off 5,000 years of prison time since 2018.

So, when investigative journalist Laura Loomer started connecting these dots, the judges wife Katherine suddenly ghosted her social media accounts like linked in, faster than a bad Tinder date!

This raises a big, blinking ethical alarm. According to the U.S. Judges’ Code of Conduct, judges should recuse themselves if a close relative might benefit from their decisions. Yet here we are, with a judge whose rulings are practically aligned with his daughter’s paycheck. “

 

The ‘letter’ of the law may appear hazy (to some) under these circumstances. I do not think so. Even if you think Trump’s actions reflect a disregard for the letter of the law, do you think he violated the ‘spirit of law’?
JAS 3/2025

 

Trump Versus Political Corruption

 

Trump opposes a Federal Judge. Is 'the law' whatever a judge SAYS it is?

Once upon a time, a small village entrusted its leadership to a council of wise men. Over time, as the village grew, those wise men appointed their sons, and their friends, and their relatives, to positions of civic leadership. As time marched on, civic leadership became a sort of ‘family business’ and the people in leadership discovered ways to exploit the public trust. The members of the public were largely unaware of this exploitation, being consumed with their jobs, and their own family issues. 

 New laws were passed by the lawmakers, and judges were appointed so that eventually, the powerful elite became more wealthy and even more powerful. But even though all of this was (or should have been) obvious to the public, they could not take time from their pressing daily duties to see to problems in their government. It was comfortable, and convenient to simply let the politicians administer the affairs of state. The politicians become even better at hiding their activities. They devised ways to obscure, confuse, and misdirect the interests of the public so that their corruption remained largely hidden.

Some of the people began to become aware of the corruption and they began to complain but the politicians merely increased the deception and confusion and misdirection. It seemed like the old ways were gone forever and the people lost all respect for, and control of, their own government. The village grew into a town and then into a large city so most people just figured that was just the nature of progress. As long as the people could still have a job, enjoy the weekends, and watch wrestling and football on TV, those despicable actions of the politicians could be overlooked.

Meanwhile, a man from another town had become wealthy and influential in his own neighborhood. He chose to operate his business in a way that was more transparent, so people could see how he worked. This made him seem like a man that could help the situation in the city. He was not a perfect man, and his methods often ruffled feathers, but he got things done and when he offered to help, the people (well…most of the people) got behind him. The people (most of the people) chose this man to fix the problems of corruption, waste, and fraud.

The predictable chasm opened among the people of the city. Some people were threatened because their primary source of income and security was derived from precisely the waste, fraud and corruption of the former leadership. Others were unhappy because the new guy was upending systems and policies that employed a lot of folks and allowed them to make their boat payments and buy bigger screen TVs. Some folks kinda liked what he was doing but they were still unhappy because the new guy had an abrasive personality and some crazy impulses. He definitely was NOT the same kind of man, nor did he operate in the same way, as the old regime.

The new guy said what he was going to do, and then he did what he said he was going to do.  He did not hide, or obscure, or misdirect the attention somewhere else. When a lawmaker, or a judge was misusing their authority, the new guy called them out and held them accountable. He used the law to attack waste, fraud and corruption. When some of the former leadership was found to have abused their authority, and instead used the power of their office to enrich themselves or family, or promote a political agenda that subverted the intent of the law, the new guy opposed them directly, openly and aggressively. Some of his actions pushed the boundaries of the law and maybe even crossed the lines. But, undeniably, the new guy shook up the old system that was clearly out of control and clearly about to destroy the foundations upon which the city had been built.

Then, as now, the people are confronted with a dilemma. We must preserve the institutions that are essential for the Republic to survive and thrive. Every threat to that objective must be eliminated.

Politicians have perverted the law and our form of government by creating departments and agencies under the executive branch and delegating congressional authority to those entities.  Judges have assumed power that transcends their legitimate authority. Politicians have exploited their offices to amass incredible wealth. Every dimension of our lives is under the control of, or impacted by, government policies and decisions. Most people have come to believe that this 'status quo' IS legal and Constitutional. We do not understand how the 'letter of the law' has come to assert power over the 'spirit of the law' so, sometimes we confused when the 'law' is challenged. 

There are principles that form, and frame, the laws of the land. Those laws are ONLY presumed just and legitimate when they conform to those principles. When a law is passed that violates the founding principles, or when judges issues a decision that is outside of the scope of their authority, then that law or decision is void, notwithstanding how popular it might be. If those politicians have tried to insulate themselves and their corruption by ‘legal’ means then they must be destroyed by any means. We (the people) must be careful that we do not allow the ‘cure’ to become worse than the disease. We must support the dismantling of the oligarchy but not incorporate those means into the ‘new’ (restored) republican ideals. We must return to the founding principles and hold on to them with zeal.

If Donald J. Trump will lead in the context of both the letter AND the spirit of the law, then I support him.  If, as president, he exposes congressmen and judges who have attempted to insulate themselves with pseudo-legal posturing, I applaud him and support his efforts to dismantle that entrenched corruption. BUT…I do not support the use of tactics that violate the spirit of the republic or the constitution. I WANT Trump to come out swinging an axe, but I expect him to be prudent, judicious, and observant of his constitutional limitations.

If he can do that, he deserves our support and our assistance. I hope that on that, we can all agree.

John Sterling, MA, JD
Law and Liberty

Deepfake

 I have been teaching criminal justice course for many years. One thing I have warned about for the last 20 years or so is what is now called 'deepfake.

 
A deepfake is a video, photo, or audio recording that seems
real but has been manipulated with AI. The underlying technology can replace faces, manipulate facial expressions, synthesize faces, and synthesize speech. Deepfakes can depict someone appearing to say or do something that they in fact never said or did.

Do you remember the old movie "Wag the Dog" with Dustin Hoffman and Robert DeNiro? It came out in 1997 and was the first time the concept was introduced to the public (as far as I know). Of course it was billed as "entertainment (and it Was...entertaining)

On 16 March 2022, a deepfake appeared online of Ukranian President Zelenskyy calling on Ukrainian citizens to surrender to Russia. The video is considered to be the first use of deepfake technology in a global-scale disinformation attack. (The attack was largely deemed to have failed at its intended goal. )

Suppose you are on a jury in a high profile case and the prosecution introduces video evidence that purports to show the defendant engaged in some nefarious activity. Whether you believe the evidence depends on the confidence you have in the government's investigator's and their evidence.

I expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing. For me, who already has trust issues, I suspect everything that is presented as digital evidence. I don't trust the news, I don't trust politicians,and I am beginning to distrust what I can see with my own eyes.

In Matthew 24:24-25, we are warned "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before."

Blessings
JAS

I cannot just agree to disagree

 WARNING: Political/social commentary
I saw this survey today (below). 

Recently(post-election) I have seen several comments from people who just want the nation to be healed and WISH that people could just agree to disagree.
I GET that, and I also want the nation to be healed, but...I'm going to take another view.

 
This presidential election (2024) was different than ANY previous election in the U.S.. There were several distinguishing differences, to wit:
One candidate was not selected for the ballot through the normal primary process.
Both parties advanced candidates with a track record after having held the highest, or second-highest office in the land.
There were four years worth of metrics by which to quantify the previous performance of each candidate and the differences were more starkly contrasted than between any two presidential candidates ever in our history.
Each candidate, and the parties they represented, offered a very clear path towards achieving their party's agenda.
Neither candidate was considered a 'prime pick' by most of the voters in America.
Each party's agenda could be clearly judged as to its consistency with national history, tradition, and the U.S. Constitution.
Every voter cast their vote as a reflection of THEIR values, traditions, and their understanding of and support of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.

Given all of that, at the end of the day, the voters picked the ground upon which they staked their future. I believe that most voted their conscience, selecting the candidate which best reflected their values.

This is quite clarifying for me. And, also quite troubling.

As illustrated in the graph below, based upon a survey, there are people (mostly young, as this survey was done by college students) who are so committed to their beliefs and values, that they cannot, or will not seek, or try to maintain a relationship with anyone who has a strongly divergent view.

I'm OK with that. Actually, I LIKE that, in some sense, because any meaningful relationship is rooted in shared values, beliefs, goals, and experiences. In this present example, those all point the future of our country: either further away from our constitutional foundations and moral values, or returning back to those roots. Personally, I do not want to invest the emotional energy or resources to have a relationship with any person who so despises those fundamental values. This is much too important.

While I can appreciate the spirit of "let's just agree to disagree", I cannot join myself to someone I consider to be an enemy of my most sacred values and beliefs. This is not merely a disagreement about some superficial issue, or some tertiary sentiment. This division of America is central to our fundamental values. It is the core of our system of laws and governance. It is the heartbeat of our national unity-what makes us the UNITED States of America.

People who cannot support the U.S. Constitution, or America's founding principles, are not going to be part of healing America. There can be no peaceful coexistence with someone whose fundamental values are hostile to our healthy, sustainable, regeneration as a beacon of hope for the world.

I am a man of peace. I choose to try to live in peace, as much as possible with my fellow man. I am tolerant of superficial differences. But there is a line between good and evil that none of us should be willing to compromise. I am willing to fight for 'truth, justice, and the American way'.

It is my opinion that this will be the point of the spear that produces, not only civil war in America, but ultimately, World War III.

And this, my friends, is why no one invites me to parties.
JAS 2024

 

A Liberal Comments on Conspiracy Theorists

 

 I recently (11/2024) read an article on Yahoo news about dealing with friends who become 'conspiracy theorists". It was written by a liberal. He makes some good points that pertain to relationships in general, but he makes some unwarranted assumptions, I think.

The Article was written by Sean Kernan, a Yahoo creator.  He says, “I acknowledge that much of my criticism in this piece is aimed at conservative leaning folks. I’d caution my fellow liberals against being sanctimonious and condescending during these discussions, as that is how we are sometimes perceived.”

Kernan told of a friend who was a pretty smart guy but who recently got very concerned about the Covid vaccines. The friend brought up “weird” questions and Kernan said that he was bringing up “ off-the-wall ideas I’d never even heard of.” The friend was quoting as a source, a podcast by someone whom Kernan described as “extreme political ideologue”. Kernan continues, “It wasn’t even a subject that I had strong opinions on, nor that I was particularly interested in.” And yet, he concludes in advance that the friend's ideas were 'off-the-wall' and further, that he'd never even heard these ideas advanced before.

See, that is part of the problem. People hold a ‘point of view’ that is most likely not well developed, nor personally researched, and may not even be a ‘hot topic’ for them but when they hear an opposing point-of-view, it grates mightily on their perceptions of reality and they are ill-prepared to defend what they actually believe. It is easier to dismiss the other person as a conspiracy nut. And Kernan wonders he and his liberals friends sometimes perveived as 'sanctimonious'.  Go figure.

Kernan goes on with his story: “I saw him again a few months later. He mentioned the election being stolen from Trump, and that’s when I started squirming…. It didn’t seem like he was inspecting the stories behind them, doing real research or, candidly, using basic logic.”

I agree with Kernan when he makes this comment: “The gulf between us was wide.” Most people, liberals and conservatives, do not do their own research. But ‘basic logic’ applied to twisted facts will lead to twisted conclusions. If we are serious about knowing truth, we must have confidence that our sources are people of integrity; honest, diligent, and critical of their own potential bias. This is true for all of us.  Logic, applied to actual facts, MAY lead to truth, if we have enough of the facts, and if those facts are relevant and timely, and any contrary facts are not intentionally ignored (i.e. ‘cherry picking’). Even then, one might still apply logic and yet be able to defend an alternative conclusion.
  
The definition of evidence is this: “Any fact which tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. The starting point for our analysis is that the facts themselves must be objectively accurate and verifiable.  Then, armed with actual facts, the analyst (truth seeker) must interpret those facts objectively. If the analysis contains bias, then the interpretation becomes subjective and the conclusions probably not accurate (not truthful).
If the analyst (truth seeker) already has bias towards a certain outcome, that will lend emotional energy to the analysis process, and that will likely lead to error. It is true that while passion may follow reason, reason will not follow passion. In other words, Passion will seldom lead a seeker to truth, but reason will, and when the mind is firmly resolved (objective truth; reliable), then the heart will follow. But if someone is being led by emotion, they will lose objectivity, and their conclusions will subjective (unreliable) truth. The Bible says (Jeremiah 17:9) "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Kernan goes on about his friend, who is becoming a conservative before his very eyes.; “It was weird to feel so confident that I was on the right side of this issue. It was also discombobulating to have someone I cared about espousing views that were borderline offensive.”  I noted that Kernan never says that he has personally researched the issues, yet he seems quite comfortable accusing his friend of not so either and yet he (Kernan) nevertheless ‘feels quite confident’ that he is right.   Doesn’t that seem like the pot calling the kettle black? Sounds like incredible hypocrisy to me. Kernan (and most liberals, it seems) are offended when their liberal (subjective) feelings are challenged by actual (objective) facts.  What is the point of trying to maintain a relationship with anyone who is terrified of the truth?

After reading the article, I would like to have had a good discussion with Sean Kernan to perhaps get some clarification and to better understand his position. I would like to have engaged with him, word-for-word, and subjected his narrative to strict critical analysis.

In closing, I remind you not to be dismayed when you find that most people are so emotionally connected to their subjective point-of view that they cannot even see their hypocrisy.  It’s nice to have ‘thinking’ friends, with whom you can carry on intelligent, objective, logical conversation. Those are few, and far between.
John Sterling