Social Justice Artists Demand Every Type of President Possible without Considering Constitutional Requirements

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the other that have been tried,” Sir Winston Churchill.

Try as we may to correct individuals from referring to the government of the united States as a democracy when it is a republic, the continual labeling of this republic as a democracy is swelling.  One would think that college students and those in higher academia circles would speak correctly when describing this government.  However, it goes to show that sending one’s children to an institute of supposed higher learning is sometimes a waste of money these days.

This is no more prevalent than the three-day event hosted by The George Washington University art school discussing how art can influence “social justice.”

According to Campus Reform:

“Creative Time Summit: Occupy the Future,” an annual event that has taken place since 2009, featured more than 50 speakers, including Black Lives Matter founder Alicia Garza, according to GW Today.

“I want a dyke for president…I want a president that had an abortion at sixteen.”   

The three-day summit in Washington, D.C. concluded with breakout sessions at the Corcoran School of the Arts and Design at GWU, where participants discussed artwork related to issues such as unionization, gender equality, and “cultural appropriation.”

Attendees also had the opportunity to participate in a session titled “Rethinking Democratic Decision-Making,” led by assistant sculpture professor Carmen Montoya, that described democracy as being at odds with the principles of social justice.

“Democracy is a beloved concept across the globe and in the United States, it is sacred. So much so that it generally goes unexamined as a practice,” a description for the workshop states.

“It is a fundamentally exclusive process and therefore easily corruptible,” the summary then declares, asking, “How can artists, political leaders, community activists, and citizens respond with more inclusive models for decision making?”

The united States is not a democracy;  it is a republic.  As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

H. L. Mencken stated, “Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule — and both commonly succeed, and are right.”

Being a republic is at odds with the principles of “social justice” while a democracy (mob rule) is actually in sync with the ideology.  Alan Corenck said, “Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they’ve told you what it is you think you want to hear.”  Democracy is mob rule — the majority decides what is to occur.  If the majority doesn’t want to have broccoli, there will be no broccoli, even though many people like broccoli.  A republic is upholding the individual God-given rights of every individual where the majority cannot usurp those rights.  So, if a few liked broccoli, under a republic, the right to have broccoli would be upheld despite what the majority wishes.

One would think an associate professor, even one whose specialty is sculpture, would know some basics of the type of government the Constitution for the united States created.

The event ended at the White House with an updated reading of “I want a president …,” developed in 1992 by activist and artist Zoe Leonard as a “collective reading project.”

Campus Reform reported:

The original version of the statement described Leonard’s desire for a president who has experienced various setbacks, such as lacking health insurance or having an abortion, that would presumably induce them to support a larger role for government in addressing such issues.

“I want a dyke for president. I want a person with AIDS for president and I want a fag for vice president and I want someone with no health insurance and I want someone who grew up in a place where the earth is so saturated with toxic waste that they didn’t have a choice about getting leukemia,” the original version states. “I want a president that [sic] had an abortion at sixteen and I want a candidate who isn’t the lesser of two evils and I want a president who lost their last lover to aids [sic].”

The concept was adapted and updated for the social justice conference, with contemporary issues such as immigration and diversity/inclusivity sprinkled liberally throughout.

“I want a Native American for president. I want a Muslim refugee for president, and I want a queer for vice president, and I want someone who walked hundreds of miles across a desert and swam across a river to be here,” the updated version begins. “I want someone who has redefined their gender and sexual identity and spoken up for their rights and committed civil disobedience and sees the flag as a work in progress.”

Many of the original elements were retained in the re-write, but with minor tweaks. Rather than desiring a president who had an abortion at 16, for example, the new version calls for one “who had a dangerous illegal abortion at 14,” then apparently reconsidered and became a parent at 15.

Summit co-host Richard Saxton, an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told Campus Reform that the social justice conference is part of a long history of artworks, particularly those that are not confined to museums, aimed at promoting social change.

Before these toddlers in playpens begin to decide “I want a president that …,” these babies need to understand what type of government the Constitution established, how that form of government works, and the reality of the workings of different forms of government, such as democracy, socialism, communism, and Marxism.  For all their college education, these pacifier toting infants need to see the wizard for a brain.  If they had a brain and an understanding of a republic, along with the requirements in the Constitution for president, they could save themselves from looking stupid by saying “I want a Muslim refugee for president.”

A refugee is not a natural-born citizen, which is a requirement to be president of the united States.  A Muslim holds allegiance to Islam and Sharia law first, which is anathema to our Constitution.  But, these “collegiate” students would know this if they were getting a proper education instead of getting indoctrination.

When it comes to social justice warriors, as these students are becoming, it never fails their “social change” involves eradicating individual God-given rights in favor of the “betterment of the collective good.”  It results in taking away rights from a portion of the population while another portion retains all their rights.  In other words, inequity is inevitable under the law where the ideology of “social justice” is implemented.  This is no more prevalent than in the “political correctness” that has been adopted by the left, liberal progressive, socialist, communist, Marxist Democrats in order to stifle freedom of speech of those who dare to disagree with them.

The social justice warrior seeks not to enhance or improve upon liberty and freedom, but to stifle it for some and retaining it for others, while administering the rule of man over the rule of law, thereby producing inequity.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it,” Thomas Jefferson, 1791.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;  the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” Sir Winston Churchill.

While these “collegiate” individuals may proclaim in a “collective reading project” their desire for a president who has suffered setbacks, these individuals would vote for politicians such as Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton.  What is more interesting is these individual declare they would vote for a president who experienced setbacks that “would presumably “induce them to support a larger role for government in addressing such issues” as abortion and healthcare.  Again, these playpen occupiers do not realize the Constitution does not authorize any portion of the federal government authority over healthcare.  And, abortion is the murdering of babies in the womb, denying rights to the unborn while elevating the “rights” of the mother.  Where is it that a mother has more rights than an unborn child?  Who has decided the mother has more rights than the unborn?  Despite God’s word and teachings, man has decided these things based on a wrong interpretation of the Constitution by those who should know better than to create imagined rights supremacy — The Supreme Court.

Still, these indoctrinated collegiate individuals will be the future of government in the united States.  All that can be said for that is “God have mercy on our souls and this republic.”


About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.