Gipper
Well-Known Member
If he could be magically brought to life today, the scorn he would heap on liberals/Dems would put an end to their appalling ideology.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Happy MLK Day
- Thread starter Gipper
- Start date
Werbung:
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I think MLK would roll over in his grave if he knew how things turned out. Its sad really.
By the way, thank you to all you tax payers who are giving me the day off paid
By the way, thank you to all you tax payers who are giving me the day off paid
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I thought this was a great story.
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
08/16/2006
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that ****** preacher."
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at www.NBRA.info.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
http://www.nbra.info/MLKWasARepublican
pdf file
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/doc...n2009/Democrats Smeared MLK in the 1960's.pdf
Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice
08/16/2006
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that ****** preacher."
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at www.NBRA.info.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
http://www.nbra.info/MLKWasARepublican
pdf file
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/doc...n2009/Democrats Smeared MLK in the 1960's.pdf
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
What's really sad/pathetic is the way in which you take a great man like MLK and turn his memory into something that even he wouldn't have condoned nor participated in...maybe you need to refresh your limited knowledge on the man himself and read/research this link:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/DrMLKingJr/
Because nowhere in any of these pages/mission statements/documents from the MLK family and archives is there the tripe and sentiment that you've shown with your diatribe...I'm highly disappointed in this swipe and political dishonor on his day of remembrance!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
What's really sad/pathetic is the way in which you take a great man like MLK and turn his memory into something that even he wouldn't have condoned nor participated in...maybe you need to refresh your limited knowledge on the man himself and read/research this link:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/DrMLKingJr/
Because nowhere in any of these pages/mission statements/documents from the MLK family and archives is there the tripe and sentiment that you've shown with your diatribe...I'm highly disappointed in this swipe and political dishonor on his day of remembrance!
You should be sad on this day. Your ideology has destroyed the black community. I am sad too and sickened by what liberalism has done to black Americans.
It is a very sad day.
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
It is a sad-sad day that for everything that MLK stood for you seem determined to twist it into something that he wasn't but when you 'spew' you rhetoric about politics be ever mindful of his stance on equality:
From his speech on the Sanitation Workers Union 1968>
You seem to have MISSED THE REASON that he gave up his life for all of us...but as with all things, "that mule and the water trough seem so far apart" and the question remains...will you ever drink from that trough before your last breath, would you lay down your life willingly for your fellow man...because I'm thinking that you are all bluster/talking points and have no depth of character...but you could try/learn/set goals to change all that
What's really sad/pathetic is the way in which you take a great man like MLK and turn his memory into something that even he wouldn't have condoned nor participated in...maybe you need to refresh your limited knowledge on the man himself and read/research this link:
http://www.thekingcenter.org/DrMLKingJr/
Because nowhere in any of these pages/mission statements/documents from the MLK family and archives is there the tripe and sentiment that you've shown with your diatribe...I'm highly disappointed in this swipe and political dishonor on his day of remembrance!
UN FRICKIN BELIEVABLE ISN'T IT?
They dishonor a man that would be so proud that his efforts that he actually died for actually allowed a Black man to become President of the United States of America.
Rest in peace MLK... for yes we did overcome.
MLK Day is just the biggest joke of all time, he doesn't deserve a holiday, he was a clown, as much as Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton & kids deserve a day off on George Washington's birthday as well. Martin Luther King Jr. is an icon for liberal Democrats, not for the rest of the American people & most won't admit it, but it's the truth. I'm not a racist, I'm all for civil rights, but MLK was a political pimp, looking for attention from the media & he knew how to pull their strings.
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
UN FRICKIN BELIEVABLE ISN'T IT?
They dishonor a man that would be so proud that his efforts that he actually died for actually allowed a Black man to become President of the United States of America.
Rest in peace MLK... for yes we did overcome.
Sad but not surprising; one doesn't know the definition of HYPOCRITE and the other just lives in the world of 'CONFUSED/IRONY' but both complain loudly when someone might get their 'FEELINGS HURT'...good grief the hypocrisy and on such a good/decent mans name and day of remembrance too!
ASPCA4EVER
Well-Known Member
Martin Luther King, Sr.; at the funeral service for his beloved wife {who was killed while playing the church organ by a random act of violence SHE WAS SHOT DEAD} both of his sons had been buried; Martin shot dead and the remaining son died in an auto wreck barely one year later...but standing there at his wife's funeral...Sr. said "I cannot hate the man that have done this to my beloved wife". You might spend some time reading and trying to understand what motivates the humble human being that made up the King family...it might make a difference in how you purport yourself someday!
To late for this day, in this place, at this time...but for your future it would behoove you to learn some humility and honor!
I'm very certian that everyone in that family would find it in their heart to love and care for 'YOU'!
Werbung:
Gipper..I think Malcolm X was a greater leader than MLK. If I were African-American, he'd be my hero. Even being white, I like the guy.
"By any means necessary." That's my style.
He and MLK went in opposite directions during their lives. MLK preached peace, but in later years was a little more militant. Malcolm spent part of his life in jail, hating white people (except his white girlfriend), then got caught up in the Nation of Islam, which is really militant, but then mellowed after going to Mecca. And, finally, he even said that maybe white people weren't "devils" after all.
Malcolm X reinvented himself three times. First, when his early childhood innocence was lost when his father was murdered by white racists; second, when he discovered the Nation of Islam; and, third, in his last couple of years when he went to Africa and Mecca.
Most people are doing well if they reinvent themselves once. (And liberals shouldn't even bother trying to make sense of what it means to reinvent yourself, because it takes self-awareness and introspection.)
When MLK marched on Washinton, it was Malcolm X who said that if white America didn't deal with MLK, they would have to deal with him.
Now, three decades later, MLK's legacy has been totally corrupted by a liberal elite class that practices open and unabashed racism in his name, defaming anyone who doesn't goose-step to the fascist agenda of the liberal left - an agenda that is based on pandering to minorities in return for votes, while delivering nothing. Today, look around, and see how black history month means little more than bashing conservatives - a sign that the so-called black leadership is really liberal leadership. Today, liberals invoke MLK's name as they pander to minorities, as they bash Republicans, and as they keep blacks "in their place" by constantly reminding them how bad off they are, and how stacked against them the system is, and how they have no chance. This is what MLK died for. Clearly, MLK got in with the wrong crowd, because we have nothing to show for his work but a bunch of angry, spiteful people (black and white) invoking his name as they blame others for their problems. MLK cast his lot with the wrong crowd.
Consider the following sentiment: You can't wait around for white people to stop being racists, or for them or anyone else to give you permission to succeed or to be happy; instead, you need to take responsibility for your life; be happy, strive to succeed, and take note of who wants you to succeed and who is raining on your parade. When you do that, you will notice that it won't be just white people raining on your parade, and it won't be just black people wanting you to succeed. But, you won't realize this until you actually try to succeed. Have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, and to believe in yourself. Live a principled life, with integrity; embrace those - regardless of their color - who stand with you; and screw those who stand against you. But, don't obsess over the latter, because life is too short, and, in any event, the best revenge is success and happiness.
Now, who would have been more likely to express that sentiment? Malcolm X or MLK? There's no question it would have been Malcolm X. He was the one with the integrity, and it takes integrity to overcome adversity. MLK, in contrast, was much more of a politician, offering pablum to the masses. It sounded good, but it meant nothing - just like today's liberals.
Malcolm X was faithful to his wife. MLK chased women.
Malcolm X stood up to the highest authority in his world (Elijah Muhammed) and openly questioned him. (And that is probably what killed him.) MLK played politics.
And, as utterly ridiculous as the Nation of Islam is (and was), there is one little, peculiar thing about it that's quite fascinating. The story of Dr. Yacub is the first pro-black mythology that was offered to the black people in this country. Previously, blacks had to contend with the "white" mythology that whites were superior, that God was white, that blacks were ape-like, etc. But, the story of Dr. Yacub turned that completely on its head. MLK can talk about his ideal world all he wants, but that exists only in the intellectual realm. The "power of myth" on the other hand, goes deep to your core being. So, the idea of opposing a white mythology with a black mythology is a very powerful one. It's pretty damn hard to overcome deep-seated beliefs about oneself, and about the world, with idealistic notions about excellence and perseverance. But, the introduction of a new mythology, in contrast, operates at that core level, and, by clashing with, or opposing, the previous mythology, it acts to cancel it out, thereby liberating the intellect to consider the ideal notions of success, perseverance, integrity and accountability (oh, and happiness, too) in a more unhindered, unfettered world-view where the constant whisper of that once-negative mythology is now abated.
Malcolm X had that going for him. MLK did not.
MLK talked the talk; Malcolm X walked the walk.
Obviously, Malcolm X ended up being a Muslim, but no one's perfect.
My two cents, fwiw.
best regards
doug
"By any means necessary." That's my style.
He and MLK went in opposite directions during their lives. MLK preached peace, but in later years was a little more militant. Malcolm spent part of his life in jail, hating white people (except his white girlfriend), then got caught up in the Nation of Islam, which is really militant, but then mellowed after going to Mecca. And, finally, he even said that maybe white people weren't "devils" after all.
Malcolm X reinvented himself three times. First, when his early childhood innocence was lost when his father was murdered by white racists; second, when he discovered the Nation of Islam; and, third, in his last couple of years when he went to Africa and Mecca.
Most people are doing well if they reinvent themselves once. (And liberals shouldn't even bother trying to make sense of what it means to reinvent yourself, because it takes self-awareness and introspection.)
When MLK marched on Washinton, it was Malcolm X who said that if white America didn't deal with MLK, they would have to deal with him.
Now, three decades later, MLK's legacy has been totally corrupted by a liberal elite class that practices open and unabashed racism in his name, defaming anyone who doesn't goose-step to the fascist agenda of the liberal left - an agenda that is based on pandering to minorities in return for votes, while delivering nothing. Today, look around, and see how black history month means little more than bashing conservatives - a sign that the so-called black leadership is really liberal leadership. Today, liberals invoke MLK's name as they pander to minorities, as they bash Republicans, and as they keep blacks "in their place" by constantly reminding them how bad off they are, and how stacked against them the system is, and how they have no chance. This is what MLK died for. Clearly, MLK got in with the wrong crowd, because we have nothing to show for his work but a bunch of angry, spiteful people (black and white) invoking his name as they blame others for their problems. MLK cast his lot with the wrong crowd.
Consider the following sentiment: You can't wait around for white people to stop being racists, or for them or anyone else to give you permission to succeed or to be happy; instead, you need to take responsibility for your life; be happy, strive to succeed, and take note of who wants you to succeed and who is raining on your parade. When you do that, you will notice that it won't be just white people raining on your parade, and it won't be just black people wanting you to succeed. But, you won't realize this until you actually try to succeed. Have the courage to stand up for what you believe in, and to believe in yourself. Live a principled life, with integrity; embrace those - regardless of their color - who stand with you; and screw those who stand against you. But, don't obsess over the latter, because life is too short, and, in any event, the best revenge is success and happiness.
Now, who would have been more likely to express that sentiment? Malcolm X or MLK? There's no question it would have been Malcolm X. He was the one with the integrity, and it takes integrity to overcome adversity. MLK, in contrast, was much more of a politician, offering pablum to the masses. It sounded good, but it meant nothing - just like today's liberals.
Malcolm X was faithful to his wife. MLK chased women.
Malcolm X stood up to the highest authority in his world (Elijah Muhammed) and openly questioned him. (And that is probably what killed him.) MLK played politics.
And, as utterly ridiculous as the Nation of Islam is (and was), there is one little, peculiar thing about it that's quite fascinating. The story of Dr. Yacub is the first pro-black mythology that was offered to the black people in this country. Previously, blacks had to contend with the "white" mythology that whites were superior, that God was white, that blacks were ape-like, etc. But, the story of Dr. Yacub turned that completely on its head. MLK can talk about his ideal world all he wants, but that exists only in the intellectual realm. The "power of myth" on the other hand, goes deep to your core being. So, the idea of opposing a white mythology with a black mythology is a very powerful one. It's pretty damn hard to overcome deep-seated beliefs about oneself, and about the world, with idealistic notions about excellence and perseverance. But, the introduction of a new mythology, in contrast, operates at that core level, and, by clashing with, or opposing, the previous mythology, it acts to cancel it out, thereby liberating the intellect to consider the ideal notions of success, perseverance, integrity and accountability (oh, and happiness, too) in a more unhindered, unfettered world-view where the constant whisper of that once-negative mythology is now abated.
Malcolm X had that going for him. MLK did not.
MLK talked the talk; Malcolm X walked the walk.
Obviously, Malcolm X ended up being a Muslim, but no one's perfect.
My two cents, fwiw.
best regards
doug
