You Know Who Dishonored the Memory of Dr. King?

You Know Who Dishonored the Memory of Dr. King?

Today, it was the Media and Al Sharpton.

Two years ago, it was Barack Hussein Obama.

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

“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.”

The “Restoring Honor” rally today focused on the content of our character, not the color of our skin, and it was attended by people from every background.

But what did the Associated Press focus on in the very first paragraph of their story? (emphasis mine)

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King’s message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King’s legacy held their own rally and march.

Focusing on the color of people’s skin is “hijacking King’s legacy”, and if the Associated Press really wants to “go there”…

Which of the two rallies looked more like a cross-section of Americans?

Which of the two rallies drew more Americans, by two orders of magnitude?

Which of the two rallies focused on what unites Americans, and which focused on what divides Americans?

I don’t believe in dividing Americans into different “hyphenated groups”.

We are Americans.

Not African-Americans and European-Americans and Asian-Americans, etc.

We are Americans. And if we want to honor the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we should not even be paying attention to the color of people’s skin.

Did the New York Times do any better than the Associated Press?

No, not really.

The rally organized by Mr. Beck, a Fox News broadcaster who has been critical of Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, has come under attack as dishonoring the memory of Dr. King by staging the event on the anniversary of his speech. Critics have suggested that Mr. Beck was trying to energize conservatives for the midterm elections.

Across town, several hundred people packed a football field at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School to stage a rally commemorating Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

“We come here because the dream has not been achieved,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton, an organizer of the rally. “We’ve had a lot of progress. But we have a long way to go.”

“They want to disgrace this day,” Mr. Sharpton told the crowd, referring to Mr. Beck’s event.

While the crowd at Dunbar was mostly African-American, the audience at Mr. Beck’s rally was overwhelmingly white, though a number of speakers and performers were black.

In my opinion, the New York Times is “dishonoring the memory of Dr. King”.

And if they want to repeat the attack that staging the event on the anniversary of Dr. King’s speech is somehow dishonoring his memory, that the date alone, and not the content of rally, dishonors Dr. King, then why didn’t the New York Times complain about that two years ago when Barack Obama did it?

I wrote about that more than two years ago here:

Obama vs. MLK’s Dream

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to You Know Who Dishonored the Memory of Dr. King?

  1. Sal Basbanes says:

    First off, the NY Times was reporting on what had been said by others, not giving their own opinion. Secondly, the crowd was indeed predominantly white, for whatever reason, this is not the NY Times “opinion”.
    Why do you malign Mr. Sharpton’s rally? It’s not a battle of the bands, you know.
    Honestly, why can’t we all just get along? You start up with the snark, and insults, and then wonder why you anger people.
    A point could be made that Beck was trying to grab some of the lustre of Dr. King for his own purposes, that he is an opportunist, that there is more than a hint of the snake-oil salesman about him. I will admit he did raise a good amount of money for charity.
    Other than that, I am not sure what the rally was about. Yes, we know that this country has problems, but please let us hear some solutions.

  2. skeeter says:

    The rally lead by Beck was a call for an American Renewal of its Christian roots and the ideals that made America great and sustained it from its founding. The rally lead by Al Sharpton was a display of his self serving character that is exactly the opposite of the character of Martin Luther King and his vision for the American People.
    Quick Facks from Census Bureau 2009
    79.6% White
    12.9% Black
    65.1% White not Hispanic
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

    I would suppose that a rally of 300,000 people with a ratio of more than 6 white to 1 Black would appear to be mostly white. How many Whites were in Sharpton’s parade?

  3. Sal Basbanes,

    Thank you for your comment.

    I will admit he did raise a good amount of money for charity.
    Other than that, I am not sure what the rally was about.

    I may come back and give you a more detailed explanation later, but there is a very simple explanation that I’ll give you now:

    And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    John 1:5

  4. Yes, we know that this country has problems, but please let us hear some solutions.

    Did you watch the rally? Glenn Beck said that the people of the “Black Robed Regiment” with him there do not agree on everything, but they agree on what the answer to our problems is.

    And Glenn Beck said what that answer is. Were you listening? Did you have ears to hear?

  5. Read a comment I left a little over 10 hours before the Restoring Honor rally started…

    2010/08/27 at 11:14 pm

  6. God Bless America, Land That I Love!
    Stand Beside Her, And Guide Her,
    Through The Night With The Light From Above.

  7. Neil says:

    Excellent points. The media and Liberals reflexively and pathetically play the race card. Ironically, they are the ones who support abortion in general and taxpayer-funded abortions in particular, and those are the ultimate racism. Abortions by blacks are 3x the rate that of whites, and taxpayer-funded abortions will only increase that. And the Liberals and MSM know it.

  8. skeeter says:

    “Rev” Sharpton protests against Becks Rally that called for America to “return to God”. What kind of reverend would protest against that?

  9. Skeeter,

    I’m glad you said that. I’ve been thinking similar thoughts. Apparently the “Reverend” Sharpton thinks the Restoring Honor rally was “hijacking King’s legacy”.

    The the number of blacks at the Restoring Honor rally was exactly equal to those who chose to be there.

    If the media thinks there should have been more blacks there…
    …THEY’RE RIGHT!

    The media should have gone to “Reverend” Sharpton’s “mostly black” rally and asked them why didn’t they attend the Restoring Honor rally?

    What was it about the Restoring Honor rally that they oppose?
    Honor?
    Faith in God?

    If the press wants to focus on the people’s skin color, then ask which of the two rallies looked closest to the demographics of America?

    Which rally drew more Americans, by two, possibly even three, orders of magnitude?

    Which rally also drew hundreds of thousands of viewers over the Internet?

  10. Neil said:

    Excellent points. The media and Liberals reflexively and pathetically play the race card. Ironically, they are the ones who support abortion in general and taxpayer-funded abortions in particular, and those are the ultimate racism. Abortions by blacks are 3x the rate that of whites, and taxpayer-funded abortions will only increase that. And the Liberals and MSM know it.

    Thank you for your comment and kind words, Neil. The media and liberals/progressives turn away from Jesus Christ and follow the thief…

    The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

    John 10:10

  11. Restoring Honor Rally – Total views: 669,838

    Those 669,838 views were just those who watched live on Facebook/USTREAM (the video was only viewable live, and is no longer available for viewing), and that number does not include those who have watched the Restoring Honor Rally on C-SPAN live TV, nor those who watched it on C-SPAN’s web site.

    Add in the 300,000 to 500,000+ who were there in person, and well over 1 Million people watched this event live.

    In our household, we had 5 people watching the USTREAM feed, so if the average number of people watching the USTREAM feed was 3 people per view, then those 669,838 views probably means that over 2 Million people watched the USTREAM feed alone.

    Since the C-SPAN video is still available on their web site, new people will continue to go there and watch it.

    Millions have already been impacted, and millions more will be impacted as time goes on.

    LAUS DEO!
    Praise be to God!

  12. Later in the day, at a High School football field, the “Reverend” Al Sharpton attracted “several hundred people”, “mostly African-American”.

    Why hasn’t anyone questioned whether or not that audience was racist?

    Why didn’t that audience attend both rallies?

    In my opinion, it appears that the “Reverend” Al Sharpton attracted “several hundred” racist socialists, while Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other great speakers and performers attracted a total audience of over 2.5 Million people who love God and love America.

  13. And yes, followers of “Black Liberation Theology” are racist socialists.

    I’m glad that the following is getting out to a larger audience, but it’s unfortunate that it wasn’t done back when I wrote this post and this post two years ago, when there was still time to let people know the truth before they voted…

  14. Aaron says:

    To quote Sal Basbanes, “First off, the NY Times was reporting on what had been said by others, not giving their own opinion.”

    How convenient is it for NYT to find other people whose opinions align so closely with their own do make a “news story”? It saves space on their editorial page, not that their paper is much more than veiled editorial anyway.

    “Secondly, the crowd was indeed predominantly white, for whatever reason, this is not the NY Times ‘opinion’.”

    Playing the race-card?…(sigh). Another Godwin’s Law violation.

    “Why do you malign Mr. Sharpton’s rally? It’s not a battle of the bands, you know.”

    Why aren’t you asking Sharpton why he maligned Beck’s rally? It was clearly a battle of the bands in Sharpton’s mind.

    “Honestly, why can’t we all just get along? You start up with the snark, and insults, and then wonder why you anger people.”

    You need to ask Al Sharpton’s crowd that one, first. In the light of so many news articles and editorials that were nothing but snark and insults against Beck’s rally, it is hypocritical for you cry foul.

    “A point could be made that Beck was trying to grab some of the lustre of Dr. King for his own purposes, that he is an opportunist, that there is more than a hint of the snake-oil salesman about him.”

    In light of the fact that you’re supporting Al Sharpton, it is more than a little hypocritical of you to accuse Beck of opportunism, “to grab some of the lustre of Dr. King for his own purposes”, or peddling snake-oil.”

    “I will admit he did raise a good amount of money for charity.”

    Understatement in attempt to downplay the impact of the rally.

    “Other than that, I am not sure what the rally was about.”

    That is a natural side effect of learning about it exclusively through MSNBC, NYT and moveon/huff-post/dailykos/etc… “news” sources.

    “Yes, we know that this country has problems, but please let us hear some solutions.”

    Conservatives have been proposing solution after solution; the Democrat control of both houses of congress has precluded any of them from being heard or debated. When conservative proposals get brought up, the left-wingers just shout, “RAAACIST!!!” over and over again.

    For a prime example of the above, see AZ Law SB 1070.

  15. Great response, Aaron! Thank you for that.

  16. skeeter says:

    The Beck Rally began with an opening prayer with at least 300,000 people in attendance throughout the day. Leastwise that is all they will count because they were licensced for that number. I would not doubt there were one half million. We are reminded by Jesus Christ Himself, in Matthew 18:20 ” –where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” The Rev Al Sharpton seemed to think Beck’s Rally was a joke, something to belittle and ridicule. This seems to be akin to the statement of the President when he said, “America is no longer a Christian nation.”

    It was also Obama who said, in his Cairo speech, “Islam is a revealed religion.” “Revealed” implys a revelation from god to the adherants of Islam.Revealed by who or what? Certainly not Jesus Christ who was God in the flesh who came and dwelt among men. Islamics believe Jesus was only a prophet not God.

    Al Sharpton’s rally also had prayers. One lady, Barbara Williams-Skinners, prayed, “We thank You God for raising up President Barack Obama as a small down payment on that dream.” I will not dispute that God raised up Obama, just as He raised up Pharaoh, Romans Chpter 9. Which is why Beck called for a return to God.

  17. Sal Basbanes says:

    Sorry, Beck is a charlatan, using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes.
    Yes, the NY Times reports what other people say, and their opinions are on the editorial page. Yes, this is a liberal paper.
    I watched most of the rally live on FB, and still do not know why it needed to happen. If people want to turn to God, let them do it privately, starting with their own lives. Is that my opinion? Certainly, I also see you have strong opinions of your own.
    I would suggest that many of these people looked sluggish and dense, their minds dulled with TV, overeating and sports.
    I don’t know what would happen if we ever had to mobilize millions of people to fight a common enemy, as we did in WWII.
    How am I “downplaying” Becks charitable donations when I am stating that fact? One positive note is that Beck himself did not overplay this.
    Yes, Al Sharpton has more of a right to honor Dr. King than Glen Beck. He has a right to say Beck is a racist, and I agree wit him. Beck is against most of what Dr. King was fighting for, which did include social justice.

  18. Aaron says:

    “Sorry, Beck is a charlatan, using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes.”

    Even if your claim of Beck as a charlatan is true, the fact that you take issue with it while defending Sharpton (who is orders of magnitude worse than Beck) is hypocritical. Worse, in addition to using religion and Dr King’s legasy, Sharpton goes further and uses race-mongering for his own purposes. Remove the plank from your own eye before going after the speck in Beck’s.

    “Yes, the NY Times reports what other people say, and their opinions are on the editorial page. Yes, this is a liberal paper.”

    Exactly, which made it convenient that they were able to save editorial space by putting their stories of the rally in their “news” section.

    “I watched most of the rally live on FB, and still do not know why it needed to happen.”

    Then either a.) you weren’t really paying attention or, b.)you were only watching with the intent of mining parts out of it for use there against. On that same note, where is your questioning of the necessity of Sharpton’s rally? You’re so quick to question Beck’s rally on a variety of levels, yet you pose no such questions about Sharpton’s? Hypocrite.

    “If people want to turn to God, let them do it privately, starting with their own lives. Is that my opinion? Certainly, I also see you have strong opinions of your own.”

    Yet you have a problem with a private citizen holding an open yet privately organized, funded and supported rally for the purpose of appealing to everyone to turn to God? How others choose to turn to God (whether public or private) is not for you to decide.

    “I would suggest that many of these people looked sluggish and dense, their minds dulled with TV, overeating and sports.”

    The old wives’ tale of “TV rots your brain” that has been thoroughly disproven time and again.

    “I don’t know what would happen if we ever had to mobilize millions of people to fight a common enemy, as we did in WWII.”

    The nature of military technology, training, employment and warfare has made grand standing armies, numbering multi-millions of direct combat-arms forces obsolete. Modern warfare, even against huge armies such as China, depends on objective-oriented precision engagements, coordinated operations and–most importantly–superb logistics.

    “How am I “downplaying” Becks charitable donations when I am stating that fact?”

    You downplayed it 1.) by burying it in the last 1/3 of your response, in between two more complaints against Beck and 2.) by using a deliberately vague understatement to abstract the actual $5,000,000 that the event raised. –source: this non-partisan website, http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Military-Charity-Raises-Record/26509

    “One positive note is that Beck himself did not overplay this.”

    And yet you insist that he is some sort of shameless, self-promoting, charlatan. Sorry, but his actions are speaking louder than your trite, cliche words.

    “Yes, Al Sharpton has more of a right to honor Dr. King than Glen Beck.”

    Unless you have a legitimate, non-race related explanation for that, then you are in opposition to Dr. King’s legasy and dream. I guess you’re willing to overlook the part about “…a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” if it means you can play the race-card again.

    “He has a right to say Beck is a racist, and I agree wit him.”

    He sure does, it’s even spelled out in Amendment 1 of the US Constitution. However, for the purpose of this thread, you need to cite some actual quotes or actions by Beck that show he is a racist, lest your claims be dismissed as groundless. These quotes must be provided in full context and must pass the tests of relevance and recency. That means no digging up something from dozens of years before his reformation and no 17+ step, logical acrobatics that somehow tie his words to potential lynchings, either.

    “Beck is against most of what Dr. King was fighting for, which did include social justice.”

    Nowhere in MLK’s famous speech was any mention of social justice, whatsoever. The closest thing you’ll ever find in it is, “racial justice,” which is mentioned exactly one time (6th paragraph, 4th sentence). In the context of the entire speech, it meant “racial equality”. “Social justice” as defined by the left-wing today is wholly unrelated to the concept of “racial justice” (which was still equality) that MLK believed in and fought for. I’ve read MLK’s famous speech in its entirety, have you? Here is the transcript: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

  19. Aaron,

    Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that you took the time to write such a thorough response to Sal.

  20. Sal,

    Sorry, Beck is a charlatan, using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes.

    That’s a slanderous and libelous accusation, made without any evidence to substantiate your claim.

    I know you are a liberal, but please try to stick to facts, not ad hominem attacks on people with whom you disagree.

    I watched most of the rally live on FB, and still do not know why it needed to happen.

    You admit that you did not watch the entire rally. You admit that you are not sure what the rally was about, and you do not understand why it needed to happen. You acknowledge that this country has problems, and you say, “please let us hear some solutions”, yet you do not understand that the rally was precisely about that.

    At one point of the rally, Glenn had scores of people on the speaking platform with him, and he said (paraphrasing), “We do not agree on everthing, but we agree that the answer is ____.”

    Did you watch that? Can you fill in the blank and tell me what that answer is?

    If people want to turn to God, let them do it privately, starting with their own lives.

    …and where did Glenn say “change” needs to begin in this country? Were you listening?

    I would suggest that many of these people looked sluggish and dense, their minds dulled with TV, overeating and sports.

    Bovine excrement!

    Here’s a beautiful example of someone who was at the Restoring Honor Rally:

    Pashai Oway, 6, of Arlington, Va., holds an American flag while attending the the "Restoring Honor" rally, organized by Glenn Beck, in Washington, on Saturday, Aug. 28, 2010. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

    Yes, Al Sharpton has more of a right to honor Dr. King than Glen Beck.

    Why, exactly? Please don’t say that it is because of the color of his skin. That would be the height of irony.

    He has a right to say Beck is a racist, and I agree wit him.

    “I agree wit him.” Was that just a typo, or are you trying to speak ebonics?

    Please provide some evidence of what Glenn Beck did or said that was racist. Without evidence, you’re no better than this:

    “That’s Racist!”

    Beck is against most of what Dr. King was fighting for, which did include social justice.

    I’m glad we’re getting to this part, because Dr. King did fight for several things, including socialism. But is that what he’s known for? I’d say that if you asked people what Dr. King is known for, the number one response would be the following:

    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.

    -Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Glenn Beck, the majority of the millions who watched and/or listened to this rally (live, via the internet, tv, and sirius radio), and I completely endorse that dream. It’s unfortunate that people like Al Sharpton and my racist friend do not.

    Most Americans are not aware that Dr. King was also a socialist. Most Americans do not support socialism, and that does not make them racists, as much as you would like to claim that it does.

    Sorry, Beck is a charlatan, using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes.

    So you end as you bagan, with a slanderous and libelous accusation, made without any evidence to substantiate your claim.

  21. Jonah says:

    Hello again.

    I have to say, this notion that MLK Jr.’s dream was solely about colorblindness is very silly. Have you read the rest of the speech? Some choice paragraphs:

    But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

    It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

    As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

    Dr. King is not advocating that we stick our fingers in our ears and pretend that race doesn’t exist. He points to many specific problems that black people were facing in 1963, and several of them still persist today.

    You’ll probably reply with some riff on

    But is that what he’s known for? I’d say that if you asked people what Dr. King is known for, the number one response would be the [the line you’ve been quoting].

    Fine. But if honoring someone’s memory has nothing to do with honoring their actual beliefs, then I don’t see the point. Ignoring the parts of Dr. King’s speeches that you disagree with is nothing other than revisionist history. You can do better than that, Red.

  22. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning.

    And 47 years later, “an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality” is exactly what was represented by the speakers at the Restoring Honor rally.

    Did you notice the calls for unity?

    And did you notice the racial division endorsed at Al Sharpton’s rally?

    Which of the two rallies better represented Dr. King’s dream? Which of the two rallies drew more support, by two to three orders of magnitude? Which of the two rallies looked more like an America united in “an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality”?

    But if honoring someone’s memory has nothing to do with honoring their actual beliefs, then I don’t see the point. Ignoring the parts of Dr. King’s speeches that you disagree with is nothing other than revisionist history. You can do better than that, Red.

    I do not ignore the other parts of Dr. King’s speeches. I agree with “freedom and equality”, with only one caveat: “equality” as defined by “Equality of OPPORTUNITY”, not “Equality of RESULTS”.

    When Dr. King said:

    We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

    I agree. No one should be the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.

    When Dr. King said:

    We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

    I agree. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be a customer of products and services for which they can pay the market price. When was the last time you heard of someone being turned away from a hotel or motel because of they are, in Dr. King’s words, a “Negro”? I don’t think that has happened in decades.

    When Dr. King said:

    We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.

    I agree. And nothing limits a Negro’s basic mobility today. In fact, in many cases, Affirmative Action programs give him or her an advantage, not a disadvantage. Which, by the way, I think is racist. I do not support Affirmative Action, but I fully support EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

    When Dr. King said:

    We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For Whites Only”.

    I agree. And when was the last time you saw such a sign? I have never seen such a sign, in person, in my entire life. I’ve only seen them in pictures from long ago. It’s time to celebrate the present and future, and move on from the shame of the past.

    When Dr. King said:

    We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

    I agree. When was the last time a Negro U.S. citizen in Mississippi was denied his Constitutional right to vote?

    When Dr. King said:

    No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

    I agree, with one caveat… again, it depends on the definition of a word… “justice”. You see, the Reverend Dr. King was quoting the Bible:

    But let justice roll on like a river,
    righteousness like a never-failing stream!

    Amos 5:24

    By the way, an American President also quoted that Bible verse in a speech during the last 47 years. Do you know who it was?

    Instead of lecturing me about re-reading the Reverend Dr. King’s speech, perhaps you should go read this speech.

    Now, when the Bible talks about “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality”, it teaches “Equality of OPPORTUNITY”, not “Equality of RESULTS”. Socialists who try to twist the Bible and promote a socialistic “Equality of RESULTS” are wrong. The Bible does not teach that.

    You say

    But if honoring someone’s memory has nothing to do with honoring their actual beliefs, then I don’t see the point. Ignoring the parts of Dr. King’s speeches that you disagree with is nothing other than revisionist history. You can do better than that, Red.

    You seem to think that if I honor the Reverend Dr. King’s beliefs about racial equality, but I dishonor his beliefs about Socialism, then I am somehow dishonoring his memory. I disagree. I can honor the good in someone, without being forced to honor the bad. There is nothing good about socialism. Nothing. It has led to the deaths of millions of people around the world. It promises a fake promise of hope and prosperity, but in reality brings death, poverty, and dispair. There is nothing Biblical about Socialism. If “Social Justice” is defined as “Equal Rights” and “Equal Opportunity”, then that is Biblical, and I support that.

    But, far too often “Social Justice” is really “SocialIST INJustlice” and is just code for Socialism, redistribution of wealth, etc., and that is not Biblical, and I unashamedly stand in firm opposition to that.

  23. Sal Basbanes says:

    There are several typos on this web site, but I did not feel the need to point them out, realizing that nobody is perfect.
    I see you could not extend the same courtesy to me, but jumped at the chance to play the race card, once again.
    Congratulations.
    This is all I need to know about you.
    What is the point of the pic of the cute little girl, and the clip of the boy shouting “racist”?
    More race cards. Keep it up, you might come up with a full house yet.
    Anyone who pushes a scheme along the lines of “goldmine” is a charlatan. Slander and libel? Really.

  24. Ok, Sal, go ahead and call me racist for posting this:

    Blacks at Tea Parties

    And you said:

    Sorry, Beck is a charlatan, using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes.

    I said:

    That’s a slanderous and libelous accusation, made without any evidence to substantiate your claim.

    Your reply:

    Anyone who pushes a scheme along the lines of “goldmine” is a charlatan.

    So, explain how you equate his sponsorship of “goldmine” with “using religion and Dr. King for his own purposes”. That’s a non sequitur.

  25. Sal,

    I want to come back and apologize about the ebonics comment. I meant it playfully, tongue-in-cheek, but I understand that it came across as mean-spirited. I should not have said it. Please accept my sincere apology about that.

    Red Pill

  26. Aaron says:

    Sal,

    If you did not understand the point of both the pic and the short clip, then you need to re-read the post containing both.

    Also, for you to try and twist that pic as some sort of “race-card play” is ridiculous and demonstrates your lack of understanding of what the race-card is. The race-card is played only by those who make direct or veiled accusations of racism against others. It does NOT apply to those who display evidence disproving accusations of racism, nor does it apply to instances of calling racism accusers out for it.

    In other words, when the host showed the pic of the young black girl attending Beck’s rally, that is not playing the race-card because it was not accusing you or anyone else of racism. In addition, his use of the boy shouting, “RACIST!” was clearly show how you portray yourself when you make groundless accusations of racism. As it was clearly not accusing you of said racism, it is not a race-card play.

    Shouting “Race-card” at others after being called out for playing it is desperate. It works for Maddow and Olbermann, but only because their medium naturally protects them being called out for it (TV being the one-way conversation it is).

    One minor note for our host, though. I think the sponsorship is actually reversed. That is, I think Goldmine sponsors Beck, rather than Beck sponsoring Goldmine, though I could be wrong on that. One further note on that, the sponsorship applies ONLY to his TV show; it had nothing to do with Beck’s rally or any of his other activities (both political and non-political).

  27. Thank you, Aaron. You underastand. I pray that Sal will eventually underastand, too.

  28. Math says:

    Shouting “Race-card” at others after being called out for playing it is desperate.

    This is quite ironic coming from you. I guess it’s ok when you do it, right?

    https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/michelle-obama-birther/#comment-6971

  29. skeeter says:

    Today under the tutorship of the great “community organizer” the use and “accusation of racism” by the left has been honed to a fine art. David Kupelian, editor of Whistleblower and managing Editor of WND describes it:
    “We’re witnessing today a textbook example of the rotten totalitarian tactic called ‘Accuse others of the evil you do'”—-.

  30. Yes, skeeter, it’s called psychological projection, and it’s the modus operandi of the left.

  31. Sal Basbanes says:

    Red Pill – Nice of you to apologize, but I don’t like schemes like Goldline, and feel they mislead prospective customers. I do, however, believe in personal responsibility when making investments, among other things.
    That has decreased my respect for Glenn Beck a bit.

  32. Aaron says:

    Whoa, Math trying to make a comeback by digging up a thread from 5 months ago. I’m almost impressed.

    Except for the fact that I didn’t play the race-card in the thread he pulled up. Further, I also made it clear how I used the terminology and how it had no reference to naziism whatsoever and yet Math STILL siezed upon it in desperate attempt to find something to tack a Godwin’s Law violation on.

    I guess Math was just desperate to finally put a Godwin violation on someone other than a left-winger. Sorry Math, it didn’t work that time and it still doesn’t work this time.

    But hey, since we’re digging up things from the distant past, I’ll give this warning to everyone who reads this website. Regardless of your reason for having it, if you drive a truck, SUV or other large vehicle, Math will openly hope for the suffering of your children and grand children so he can blame it on you and your vehicle.

    https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/no-blood-for-oil/#comment-5312

    For the record, Math still has no clue what kind of vehicle I own or drive, but if it makes him feel better about himself, I’ll let him think it’s a Hummer.

  33. Math says:

    Except for the fact that I didn’t play the race-card in the thread he pulled up. Further, I also made it clear how I used the terminology and how it had no reference to naziism whatsoever and yet Math STILL siezed upon it in desperate attempt to find something to tack a Godwin’s Law violation on.

    Saying you didn’t refer to nazism in that thread is like saying Sal didn’t play the race card because there was no physical card involved. That’s disingenous.

    For the record, Math still has no clue what kind of vehicle I own or drive, but if it makes him feel better about himself, I’ll let him think it’s a Hummer.

    Lol that one still hurts right? 1 year old. I didn’t even remember that. As far as desperation goes, I yield, you beat me.

  34. Aaron says:

    “Saying you didn’t refer to nazism in that thread is like saying Sal didn’t play the race card because there was no physical card involved. That’s disingenous.”

    Really Math? Once again, since you didn’t understand the first time. The Democrat party is a National party with a Socialist platform. Hnece, National Socialist. There was no reference to Naziism (or anything related to German history for that matter) except where YOU needed one IOT conjure up some Godwin violation where none existed. The first person to bring up Hitler’s name was you, not me. I never mentioned anything about Nazis or Hitler.

    “Lol that one still hurts right?”

    Not as much as knowing that you hope for the suffering of the children and grand children of truck drivers, limo drivers, couriers, large families, trailer pullers and everyone else who uses a large vehicle regardless of their reason for driving it.

    “1 year old.”

    Which is some how different from the 5 month old quote that YOU dug up?

    “I didn’t even remember that.”

    But you had no trouble remembering something you could try to use? Selective memory.

    “As far as desperation goes, I yield, you beat me.”

    Labeling me as desperate because I used your own tactics against you?

  35. Math says:

    I never mentioned anything about Nazis or Hitler.

    If it really didn’t occur to you that you were referring to Nazis (you may want to look up the etymology of that word) by referring to National Socialism, then you admit your own stupidity. Even Mr Pill caught it and justified it because the left does it too, as usual: https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/michelle-obama-birther/#comment-6975

    Labeling me as desperate because I used your own tactics against you?

    Actually, they’re your tactics:
    https://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/the-contrapositive-if-no-long-form-birth-certificate-then-obama-birth-narrative-is-fraudulent/comment-page-2/#comment-7714

    June 30, 2010 at 7:23 pm:

    BTW: you are correct that it was not you who demonized me for supposedly (but not confirmed) driving a Hummer. It was Math, under the “No Blood For Oil”, August, 2009. My mistake on that one. Just don’t let him know that you have a truck or he’ll hope for the suffering of your children and grand children so he can blame it on you and your truck.

  36. Aaron says:

    If you really think that every time the words national and socialist are used together, it automatically refers to Nazis, then you necessarily claim that all political parties with a National presence and a Socialist platform are Nazis. As stated before, the democrats are a National party with a Socialist platform.

    “Actually, they’re your tactics:”

    I see your selective memory is at work again, but the fact that you used it while labeling me as “desperate” for doing it in return to you, is hypocritical.

  37. Math says:

    If you really think that every time the words national and socialist are used together, it automatically refers to Nazis, then you necessarily claim that all political parties with a National presence and a Socialist platform are Nazis.

    …ALSO stood bravely against the overwhelming might of National Socialist (democrat) machine as it forced upon the population, its own will.

    Nice strawman there Aaron. In have no doubt that you think the democrats ae socialists, and they’re obviously a national party. Why then did you use capital letters, hence making your use of National Socialist a proper name? If you were referring to the national and socialistic nature of the Democrat party, you would have used lower case, no? What oaths etymology of the word Nazi? It is derived from the word Nationalsozialismus, german for National Socialism.

    What more can I say when common sense and logic are obviously lost on you?

    I see your selective memory is at work again, but the fact that you used it while labeling me as “desperate” for doing it in return to you, is hypocritical.

    I guess Math was just desperate to finally put a Godwin violation on someone other than a left-winger

    I reread your first reply. I thought you were calling me desperate for digging up a 5 month old thread, in which case you would have been even more desperate to have dig up a 1 year old thread. In this case I was wrong to label you as desperare for that reason. However your defense for your Godwin violation would certainly qualify.

  38. Aaron says:

    The title casing was for emphasis, not a reference to Nazis. Didn’t you see the lack of caps for democrat? Or note the continued use of caps for those words even when not paired together as you continued to argue your point before derailing onto the “Naziism = far right ideology” myth you repeatedly use as a strawman.

    “What more can I say when common sense and logic are obviously lost on you?”

    Resorting to ad hominems again? Just go back to holding protests and demanding more unearned entitlements from your government. It’s what the left is best at, after all. Oh, and don’t forget to blame Bush, too.

    Oh wait, if you hold a protest and the government gives you a hand-out because of it, then you I guess HAVE earned it. Is that some of your logic?

  39. Math says:

    Resorting to ad hominems again?

    What ad hominem? That was a statement of observed facts. I have used logic and common sense and you still cling on that you had no idea you were slurring the Democrats by calling them National Socialists (ie nazi), hence logic and common sense are lost on you. How desperate of you to use an ad hominem to try to tack one on me!

    You have to accept that explanation if you want me to accept that your reductio ad Hitlerum was just a statement of your opinion of the Democrats.

    Just go back to holding protests and demanding more unearned entitlements from your government. It’s what the left is best at, after all. Oh, and don’t forget to blame Bush, too.

    You are getting better and better at this. An ad hominem THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE you complain about a perceived ad hominem. Next time, please use a comma, I want to see if you can do it in one sentence! And now you pretend to know that I attend protests and get any unearned government help in the same thread where we discussed your whining that I pretended to know what car you drive. You remind me why I have so much fun on this blog.

    And by the way, before you mention my Canadianism and the fact that I get “free” health care, I would hardly consider that unearned. I probably pay a lot more tax than you do (and no I have no frakking clue how much you pay in taxes so don’t start. Good luck trying to claim that personal taxes (income and otherwise combined) are higher anywhere in the US than Canada if you want to rebut this, though).

    The title casing was for emphasis, not a reference to Nazis. Didn’t you see the lack of caps for democrat?

    Why did you want to emphasize those two words, in that particular order? And what does the fact that they’re a national party have to do with anything? Saying they’re socialists, now that’s a strong statement. Saying they’re national? Why mention it at all, if not to conveniently place it next to the word Socialist?

    Of course you didn’t capitalize Democrat. From the few posts I bothered to dig up, you don’t seem to systematically capitalize Muslim either. I’m sure it’s for the same reason I don’t systematically capitalize god, bible or anything else related. (before you shove them to my face, I did find some posts where you capitalized Muslim, that’s why I said systematically capitalize, so don’t bother).

  40. Aaron says:

    “I have used logic and common sense and you still cling on that you had no idea you were slurring the Democrats by calling them National Socialists (ie nazi), hence logic and common sense are lost on you.”

    And I used logic and common sense on YOU and proved how it WASN’T, yet YOU refuse to drop your position just the same. It is hypocritical of you to make such a claim as you did in the face of irrefutable facts. National presence, Socialist platform = National Socialist party. If you refuse to accept that then you are the one who lacks common sense and logic.

    “You have to accept that explanation if you want me to accept that your reductio ad Hitlerum was just a statement of your opinion of the Democrats.”

    Speaking of straw-men. Now you’re adding demands in as well? Not unlike a left-winger to think he can level demands at strangers. Sounds like their whole, “You have to buy my health-care plan if you want me to not throw you in jail for tax evasion.”

    “Why did you want to emphasize those two words, in that particular order? ”

    Because common sense tells English speakers that “Socialist National party” doesn’t flow well.

    At this point, you’re doing the exact same that you regularly bash the host for allegedly doing. You’re parsing words and digging into minute details IOT stand behind your claim. Unlike the host’s efforts, though, there are no real implications that could result from your continued pursuit of your claims.

    “And by the way, before you mention my Canadianism and the fact that I get “free” health care, I would hardly consider that unearned.”

    An unearned entitlement is any that is given by the government when it is not a direct compensation for product/service given to the government. Soc sec, medicare, and medicaid are all prime examples of unearned entitlements. Veteran’s benefits (home financing, limited medical, hiring preference, education, etc…) on the other hand, are compensation for military service, thus earned benefits. Just because you’re paying taxes does not automatically equate to you earning benefits.

    Also, I’m quite happy to pay less in taxes than you. It means I have more money for my own use and that I won’t have to rely on the government to rob others IOT pay for myself. You may have to reread that one a few times to fully understand; I know that self-reliance and independence are concepts that are foreign to left-wingers.

    For the record, though. In the Peoples’ Republic of California, taxes are upwards of 67%. 33% for a $220k revenue small business family (higher if the business makes $400k revenue), + 15.3% SE Tax, + 9.3% CA Income Tax, + 9.5% CA Sales Tax, and I haven’t even included Property Taxes. That figure will go to 70% once Obama raises taxes later this year.

  41. Math says:

    Speaking of straw-men. Now you’re adding demands in as well? Not unlike a left-winger to think he can level demands at strangers. Sounds like their whole, “You have to buy my health-care plan if you want me to not throw you in jail for tax evasion.”

    It’s funny that I never considered myself to be on the left. I’m mostly in the center. I disagree with most social entitlement measures here. I would move if I didn’t love where I live and didn’t have my roots here. With you being on the extreme right, I guess that qualifies me as left wing in your eyes. This and you being well versed in the art of straw men and ad hominem is all it took for me to become the evil librul communist.

    National presence, Socialist platform = National Socialist party.

    No, national presence, socialist platform = national, socialist party. Or national and socialist party. Not National Socialist (the name of the nazi party) party. You can justify it any way you want, you still slurred the Democratic party by equating it to nazis.

    And I bet you had no intention of slurring California by equating it to the People’s Republic of China either?

    Unlike the host’s efforts, though, there are no real implications that could result from your continued pursuit of your claims.

    Other than your assessment of our host’s efforts, I agree with you. I’m wasting my time debating this with you.

    Also, I’m quite happy to pay less in taxes than you. It means I have more money for my own use and that I won’t have to rely on the government to rob others IOT pay for myself.

    I am happy my financial situation will not be a factor when my doctor or hospital will decide on a life-saving treatment. I will have to deal with other hurdles, like waiting lists, but at least money will not be a factor.

    I don’t care too much about myself, I could probably afford it. Yet my mother couldn’t. And she’s already had her life saved without having to mortgage her house.

    I disagree that paying taxes does not mean the services are earned. It is a very surprising position for a right winger to take. Why is barter the only acceptable mean of obtaining services from the government? What did you do for the government to earn that nice road that probably leads to your place (I say probably because knowing you, you’ll tell me I have no idea where you live and I have no right to accuse you of living next to a road). Since when is pure capitalism not the answer to everything? I pay money, I get a service when I eventually get sick and need it (the very nature of an insurance).

    I’m not saying our system is perfect. It is not by any means. And in my personal situation, I would be better served in your system because I could afford to have good insurance. But at least I don’t have to worry about being ditched at the first sign of a serious condition or if my work conditions change.

  42. Aaron says:

    “And I bet you had no intention of slurring California by equating it to the People’s Republic of China either?”

    No, I had every intent of slurring California as a ‘peoples’ republic.’ It didn’t have to be China but sure, why not?

    “But at least I don’t have to worry about being ditched at the first sign of a serious condition or if my work conditions change.”

    I don’t have to worry about that either, because I have already planned and prepared for it, no government leeching necessary.

    “I will have to deal with other hurdles, like waiting lists, but at least money will not be a factor.”

    Given the horrors of government bureaucrats (who still make health decisions based on money) and waiting lists (which can–and often do–stretch for months) I’ll stick with the money factor. So many lefties complain that it translates into, “Only the rich get good healthcare, ” but at least they have to drop significant amounts of wealth to get it.

    In a government system such as Canada or Britain, what you instead end up with is that the rich STILL have far better access to care, but now they no longer have to pay for the privilege; it just comes with the status.

    “Since when is pure capitalism not the answer to everything?”

    Since the beginning of civilization and the advent of currency. It has always been the absence of Captialism that brings suffering and oppression upon populations. The dark ages of Europe were the time when most of Europe practiced feudalism. When capitalism began to establish and grow again (14th century, following the end of the Crusades), it brought Eurpoe into the Reniassance. That same feudalism is what delayed Japan’s own industrial revolution until the very end of the 19th Century. I’ve already pointed out 20th century examples of where the absence of capitalism wrought suffering and the deaths of at least 216 million (mostly innocent) lives.

    “I disagree with most social entitlement measures here.”

    Really? Then why have you agreed with those in the US who have forced the population to suffer (and pay for) the entitlement measures recently enacted?

    “What did you do for the government to earn that nice road that probably leads to your place…?”

    Conflating infrastructure development/maintenance with social entitlement scams? That is something I’d expect from the daily kos, not a self-described “mostly in the center” person. With the exception of the Interstate Highway System and federal jurisdiction lands, roads in the US are built and maintained by the state and local government entities, not the Fed. Further, the IHS was built and still serves the primary role of supporting national defense–specifically facilitating the rapid movement of ground forces in case of a homeland invasion. And that is a verifiable fact.

    “I pay money, I get a service when I eventually get sick and need it (the very nature of an insurance).”

    Which private companies can provide quicker, cheaper, superior and more customized to one’s own needs when compared to the government. Between Health Savings Accts and Catostrophic Care Coverage–which is a far cheaper insurance that covers those health expenses above a certain minimum (often $10k and higher).

    The only real problem with private insurance is the practice of fine-printing, where less scrupulous firms will incorporate lots of exceptions and weasel clauses. Those firms are the exception and not the norm. In addition, a well educated and informed public can effectively eliminate that practice by taking their business elsewhere (provided the government doesn’t decide that said firms are, “too big to fail.”

  43. Compare and contrast:

    The 8/28/2010 “Restoring Honor” rally, which honored God and drew a very sizable crowd,

    vs.

    The 10/2/2010 “One Nation Working Together” rally, which replaced “Under God” with “Working Together”, and drew a much smaller crowd, even with unions pressuring members to go, and arranging bus transportation for them.

    The Communists and Socialists had a rally on Saturday, and the Democrat Party fully embraced them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s