Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


NY Times: Justice Should Be Guaranteed for Some Americans, but Not All

I love it when the left slips up and tells the truth. Did you know the left doesn’t believe in justice for all? The New York Times said so.

Yes, I know, the concept of “justice for all” is an important keystone upon which the American judicial system is constructed. That’s not to say our judicial system is infallible – mistakes have and will be made. But, the idea of “justice for all” means that our system of justice isn’t made up of keystone cops and kangaroo courts — Mueller probe and the likes of Strzok, Lisa Page, Andy McCabe, Bruce and Nelly Ohr, Comey and etc. excluded.

In a September 3, 2018 New York Times piece Katie Benner wrote:

The Justice Department’s decision last week to support Asian-Americans seeking to curb race-based college admissions is the latest in a series of moves that are redefining decades of civil rights enforcement – and reshaping the very notion of whose interests the federal government should protect.

There you have it. Katie Benner said “whose interests the federal government should protect.” The corollary is that the federal government isn’t likewise obligated to protect the rights of others. Katie Benner wasn’t done though:

Since its founding six decades ago, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has used the Constitution and federal law to expand protections of African-Americans, gays, lesbians and transgender people, immigrants and other minorities – efforts that have extended the government’s reach from polling stations to police stations.

Call me crazy, but given the predisposition of Benner’s cited demographic groups to vote Democrat, it would appear Benner advocated extended government “protection” over those aligned with a particular ideology.

Think about it. Benner’s opening salvo said “whose interests the federal government should protect.” She never said government should protect everyone’s interest.

Benner’s second paragraph was prejudicial. She mentioned many demographic groups. She omitted many demographic groups. Factually speaking, the demographic groups Benner cited tend to vote Democratic. That’s not to say that everyone in those groups votes Democratic — only that a majority of African-Americans, gays, lesbians and transgender people, immigrations and at least some minorities, tend to vote Democrat. In other words, some groups enjoy “expanded protections” provided by government.

While other groups do not. And according to Benner, should not, because in her view justice is limited to those “whose interests the federal government should protect”.

Is it any wonder Antifa can literally assault people in broad daylight and walk away from the whole affair guilty as hell but free as a bird – yet if anyone on the right dare speaks out of turn the full brunt force power of the media-deep state complex is immediately levied against them? Is it any wonder Manafort went to trial and faces jail time while John Podesta’s brother – who did the same things for which Manafort was charged – is a free man today?

To paraphrase Benner: whose interests should the federal government protect?

Image: Excerpted from: Haxorjoe – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0,

Andrew Allen

Andrew Allen (@aandrewallen) grew up in the American southeast and for more than two decades has worked as an information technoloigies professional in various locations around the globe. A former far-left activist, Allen became a conservative in the late 1990s following a lengthy period spent questioning his own worldview. When not working IT-related issues or traveling, Andrew Allen spends his time discovering new ways to bring the pain by exposing the idiocy of liberals and their ideology.