Monday, January 21, 2013

"Forward", But What Would MLK Say About Obama, Poverty, Guns, Abortion, Etc.

Today President Obama celebrates the inauguration of his second term as President of the United States.

What is "Forward" for secular progressives, is "mourning" for those who "cling" to traditional, biblical values and the principles and freedoms that made America the great nation it has become.

The inauguration of the first African American president is, of course, on MLK day.

The association causes us to wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr., would say about Obama, poverty, guns, abortion, etc.

I am not a student of MLK, but it has crossed my mind.

Mike DeVine has also given it some thought and has written a thoughtful article about it that might be a bit different than the associations that will be made today.


Mike DeVine wrote the following article for Red State yesterday:

What MLK would say on Obama, poverty, guns, abortion, etc.

Tomorrow, America’s first Black President will deliver his Second Inaugural Address on the national holiday named for the Black preacher that dreamed of a day when Americans would judge their fellow man by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. Roosted atop Stone Mountain of Georgia, let’s make it so.

During a 1980s lobbying trip to Capitol Hill on behalf of the Carmens International labor union local, we met with Armstrong Williams, the legislative aide of our senior Palmetto State Sen. Strom Thurmond. An activist liberal Democrat, at the time, whose parents had been instrumental in racial integration in our hometown, I was impressed that a Black man of my age and from my home state was an enthusiastic part of the former segregationist Democrat-and-Dixiecrat-turned Republican’s team. Sadly, it took over 15 years of reality-mugging for me to join them in the GOP, but I digress.

I had also dropped by the senator’s office to thank him for the Strom Thurmond Foundation’s funding of the cost of books during law school matriculation after winning its essay contest. Williams had read the essay before my scheduled visit and, based upon its content, presented me with portraits of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, both of which have continuously adorned the vanity wall behind my office desk since that time.

Not too many years later, Senator Thurmond would be the sponsor of the bill, signed by the greatest Republican president since its first, that added the name of Martin Luther King to those of George Washington and Christopher Columbus as the only national holidays to honor individuals by name. Before Barack Obama’s name was ever on a ballot, much less finally been voted for by enough white Iowans in 2008 to finally make Michelle proud of her country for the first time, South Carolina Republicans were living King’s dream. Sadly, too many Democratic Party functions I attended were still dominated by skin color-based conversations.

In 1968 America lost a great civil rights leader to an assassin’s bullet who, along with Brown v. Board Lawyer Thurgood Marshall and millions of other Greatest and Silent Generation Americans who marched, preached, and litigated to integrate Little Leagues (like my Dad), Cub Scout dens (like my Mom) and all aspects of American life. Of course, we can’t know exactly how the good Reverend Doctor would judge the issues of today or America’s current political and cultural leaders. We can never know if Martin would have evolved into a bitter false race and Uncle Tom card-player that condemns all White folks to Hell like too many of his fellow Atlanta marchers. We doubt it, but King’s greatness, much like the greatness of the Father of our Country and the one that sailed in 1492, is not dependent on their being sinless vessels. God knows that King, Washington, and Columbus achieved greatness alongside their own contemporaneous flaws.

King’s greatness was to prod America to live up to its creed of Creator-endowed-rights equality while practicing the very Judeo-Christian values upon which its Declaration of Independence creed is based. Unlike President Obama, King embraced those values and the Constitution as written. We think King would also embrace the only Black presently sitting in the U.S. Senate all the more because the content of Republican Tim Scott’s character was twice adjudged positively by over 65% by his 83% white Charleston, S.C. House district.

In that regard, soon after the Montgomery house of the author of non-violent civil disobedience was firebombed in 1956, his application for a gun permit was denied by the state of Alabama. Somehow, we think the good Doctor King would disagree with Democrats that claim the Second Amendment was drafted to protect slave owners from slaves or that the only one’s complaining about gun control today are racist White Southern tea partiers.

We doubt Martin would agree with Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine’s characterization of the word “nullify” as a racial code word when directed at Obama’s executive gun orders by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), any more than when it directed by him to nullify Jim Crow laws denying Blacks the right to bear arms or even by John C. Calhoun in opposition to high tariffs. In 2009, MSNBC famously accused conservative White Republicans of being racist gun nuts while showing a man from the neck down at a tea party rally carrying a firearm; only to have the whole photo later reveal that the man toting the weapon was a Black man. Somehow we think Bob Scheiffer wouldn’t characterize the fight to keep MLK from obtaining a gun permit as akin to America’s fight against Hitler’s mass murdering, gun-confiscating Nazi regime.

Think Democrat House members like Atlanta’s Hank Johnson who characterize opposition to gun control as racist are aware that the first gun control laws in this country, dating back to 1640 Jamestown, were directed against blacks, slave and free? Are they aware that one of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s arguments against any constitutional rights accruing to Blacks in the infamous Dred Scott case was the fear that emancipation would entitle them to bear arms like White men?

Would MLK think it racist voter suppression to have to show the same form of ID to vote that Whites have to show? Not likely.

Compared to the Obama media, Obama himself and his Democratic Party, Rev. King comes across as one of those bitter clingers to God and guns that refused to vote for Michelle’s husband in 2008. We doubt the Baptist preacher would share Time magazine’s recent characterization of the fight against pro-lifers as “all losses since” the Roe v. Wade decision 40 years ago, given the over 55 million lives sacrificed for “choice”.

Finally, we are certain that the response of the organizer of the Poor Peoples Campaign, and supporter of Memphis Sanitation Workers as the last efforts of his life, to President Obama’s blame-Bush game when reminded of historic unemployment for the last four years would be the same as his response to cries for patience for Civil Rights over 100 years after Appomattox: “How Long“?

Think MLK would agree with Obama that high gasoline and energy prices are good for poor folks; or that only rich booksellers should have school choice? Me neither and Martin King’s mama didn’t raise no fool. But after all, Dr. King never became a Democrat.

Mike DeVine

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Informed. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.

23 comments:

  1. Very powerfully said. It seems that judging people by the color of their skin is still fashionable as long as they're a conservative. They must automatically be a race traitor or a cornball brother. Dr. King's dream was the 'content of their character', clearly we still have a long way to go.

    Craig In Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, judging by color of skin is bad, but judging by sexual orientation is good? Yes, you do have a long way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So... that's precisely the argument a pedophile or rapist or someone involved in bestiality would make. It's their orientation. They can't help themselves, they were born that way. Hogwash, they chose that path as homosexuals have chosen theirs.

      Tough, I don't care how they excuse it, God says don't do it or pay the price. That's not my opinion either, that's what the Bible says about ALL the above mentioned conduct.

      Repent.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    2. Wow, if you can't see the difference between a loving consenting adult couple vs someone forcing sex on child, animal, or any other human, you have a REALLY long way to go. And if God says no, fine, then it's between them and God, we should keep our noses out as it's none of our business.

      Delete
  3. 3:26 Bogus, bogus. Ethnicity and sexual behavior is not equivelant. Your comment would insult most Blacks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What the African Americans were asking for and rightly deserved, was very different than what the gays are demanding and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, you have a long way to go and these statements just validate that.

      Delete
    2. 1014

      Don't we all have a long way to go ?

      Mick

      Delete
  5. Dr. King WOULD challenge some of the policies of the Obama administration--I think especially the use of drone strikes that have killed and maimed so many innocent civilians. But it is an utter travesty to imply that King would be a spokesman for gun rights today! Yes, he did apply for "a license to carry a gun in the car" which was refused by the state of Alabama. But Mike DeVine completely ignores two facts that are recounted in King's Stride Toward Freedom (pp. 137, 141): A large crowd gathered outside King's home soon after the bomb exploded, very angry, many of them armed with guns. King told the crowd: "If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence." Later, King reconsidered his application for a gun license: "How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection?" His wife agreed that "arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned." Unarmed bodyguards thereafter accompanied Dr. King. Please DO NOT construe King's position to be the opposite of what it actually was!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken I agree with you on this . But the left has made a practice of using the day Honoring the Reverend Martin Luther King to promote their policies of nuclear disarmament to big government solutions long before the right started to . In a way i guess its a compliment , and perhaps some validation to how far we have advanced in race relations . Both sides of the political spectrum believes someone honoring racial equality is a good thing to emulate .

      King spoke to retaliatry violence , Jesus spoke to turning the other cheek . In both examples the concern was strinking back at someone in revenge , it had nothing to do with the RIGHT to be armed . The issue was revenge and violence caused by the reason of revenge . The hatred in the heart not being armed was the point .

      Good people who support King's legacy can disagree about the 2nd Amendment . I like to think if King was alive he would have targeted the unwed birth rate so high today . Seems poverty and the other injustices caused by racism have been replaced by a self inflicted cause of poverty in some cases . It definetely has done so in the white population. But if King went along with the progression of liberalism as it is today , I personally would have been disappointed . I like to think he could have changed what we see today .

      Delete
  6. What would MLK say about Obama's policies today? I'm sure he would challenge the drone strikes that have killed and maimed so many innocent civilians! But for Mike DeVine to make Dr. King a proponent of gun rights is an absolute denial of what he actually said! Yes, in Stride Toward Freedom King does mention that his application "for a license to carry a gun in the car" was refused. But DeVine chooses to ignore two other essential elements of the story: 1) The night of the bombing of King's home, a large angry crowd quickly gathered, many of them armed with guns. King told them, "If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence." 2) King later reconsidered: "How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection?" He talked the matter over with his wife and she agreed that "arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned." Thereafter, unarmed bodyguards accompanied Dr. King. Please DO NOT DISHONOR Dr. King by construing his position to be the opposite of what it actually was!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why doesn't Pastor Gary Randall ever discuss what he did in the 60s to fight for civil rights? He talks about Kerry's record in Vietnam and MLK and civil rights, but he won't talk about what he was during during this time. I can only imagine that he was doing then what he does now: blowing hot air and criticizing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gary doesn't just blow hot air and criticize. He gives his followers cover to feel ok about their bigotry.

      Delete
    2. I need no one to cover for anything I say. I fear no man, only God. You would do well to do the same.

      Craig In Lacey

      Delete
    3. Gary's under no obligation to speak about what he did in the 60's. If he did, you would call that self-serving, he can't win either way. What did you do?

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    4. In other words, you'd feel ok about your bigotry even without Gary. I'm sure that's very true.

      Delete
    5. @456 And you feel good about your perversions I assume .

      Delete
    6. 5:36 by perversions, you mean being gay? Sorry to break your stereotype, but I'm not gay and it's telling that you assume it. But, yes, I do hope that those who were born gay live a happy and proud life free from the civil restrictions you and your fellow bigots would impose. Seriously, you don't have to be gay to support equality for your brothers and sisters.

      Delete
    7. 4:36

      I'm not bigoted at all. I just speak God's truth. It's an abomination for a man to lay with a man as he does with a woman. Got a problem with it, take it up with Him.

      Jesus said that "all men will hate you because of me", I expect nothing less from you or anyone else opposed to God. Its cool, I forgive you.

      Craig in Lacey

      Delete
    8. 1009 ,

      Are you now not only a judge , your are a physic.I never stated you were gay ... Comprehenson problem or just see things with your little radar. Of course you support sexual relations out of marriage . Thats a perversion , in fact when we look at someone with lust without physical contact its considered perversion from a Bibical world view . Jimmy Carter spoke about in PlayBoy . I found it interesting you felt you needed t deny your a homosexual . Quite interesting . I never read anything in the Bible that condemns homosexuals or same sex attraction . Now behaviors , many behaviors cause people to get hurt or hurt someone else .

      But to your stereotypes , well lets just say you bring many here . Your trolling and its old .

      So really who cares what gary did in the 60's ,
      "50 years ago" . The point is comrade, no one is perfect here , no one is better then another .

      Anything else you need to say , say it .

      But seems to me your batting average is low here, your making assumptions that have no validity , and showing you hate people here without any reason or even knowing where they coming from . .

      Delete
    9. 536 I think he rather stand up for a only a specific group of beliefs and views , but totally come out against any brothers and sisters he disagrees with . His family consists of only who he agrees with . His equality is the kind that always leaves some on a lower level then he is at . Ignore him . We have free elections in this country , his kind of equality is why people got in boats and came here to begin with.

      Delete
    10. 7:47 You are the one who stated that I had perversions (speaking of psychic). Given the almost singular obsession with homosexuality on this site over the past years, it was a natural connection to assume that is what you were referring to. You then mentioned sex out of marriage as recovery, batting zero again, I'm married. But my point stands, I'm sure you as an individual are very comfortable in your bigotry. Gary is just providing cover for the others.

      Delete
  8. I think MLK's idea of justice was about what's right, honest, true, pure, good, fair, and eqitable and that his concept of justice caused him to do the good things he did and to be involved in the ways that he was, to promote good, righteousness, honesty, etc.

    I don't think his idea of justice was about anything goes, or that whatever is different makes a people stronger. No, MLK had foundation.

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.