Gay Patriot Header Image

Dr. King’s Dream: “deeply rooted in the American dream”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 10:54 am - January 21, 2013.
Filed under: Freedom,Great Americans,Great Men,Holidays

In making the case for civil rights for black Americans in the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. often cited not just the founding (and other defining) documents of our country, but also its patriotic hymns.

In his “I Have a Dream” speech spoken almost fifty years ago on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he referenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution as well as the Emancipation Proclamation.  He recited verses from “My country ‘Tis of Thee.”  He did not fault the American ideal, instead wanted to make that ideal real for all citizens of this great republic.

In that great address, he spoke the word, “free” or “freedom” twenty-five times.  He knew the word defined as aspect of the American ideal.  And he was ever the optimist:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day (Yes) this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” 

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream (Well)[applause] 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.  I have a dream today.

On Dr. King’s day, let us remember this great man and his patriotic dream.

Share

38 Comments

  1. The life and message of Martin Luther King set loose a swarm of black hucksters who have been scrapping over his mantle ever since. They want it to aggrandize themselves and be elevated to a level of political importance and power.

    Irony is so often too delicious to fully savor. Kipling wrote a wonderful novella entitled The Man Who Would Be King. It is about the fate of an interloper who want the power and grandeur of being a king, but does not have any concept of the inner strength and character it takes to be the king.

    Since Martin Luther King’s death we have been treated to the likes of John Lewis, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Jessie Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Julian Bond, Louis Farrakhan, Alcee Hastings, Marion Barry, Ray Nagin, etc.

    King’s words are recited over and over and for too many people they have become a rallying cry without meaning, deep belief or principle.

    It is imperative that we remember Martin Luther King for his principled stand on healing the divisions of racism. What we have also inherited is a boatload of black scalawags that only exist by keeping racism alive.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 21, 2013 @ 12:25 pm - January 21, 2013

  2. People have been saying how great it is for a Black president to be re-inaugurated on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. While it is great that the United States, as a whole, doesn’t view Black people as second-class citizens or sub-human any more, I doubt Dr. King would be entirely pleased with the current situation (who knows, he could be, but it seems unlikely). Racism is still prevalent in the United Staes, just a different and less evident kind of racism. Black people still aren’t judged by their characters to the same extent as White people, and it is the Black president’s own party who is committing the racism.

    Furthermore, Black people, in general, aren’t anywhere near as well off as White people. This is again because of the Black president’s own party and its dependence upon the “Black vote,” which gives it an incentive to perpetuate the myth that Republicans and conservatives are racist and, even more devastatingly, keep Black people dependent on government programs (which could have potentially happened to any group of people). It is appalling, and I have no doubt that Dr. King would be disappointed. That isn’t to say he wouldn’t be proud of the progress that has been made since his time, but there is still a lot of racism and I’m sure he would be disappointed about that.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 21, 2013 @ 12:47 pm - January 21, 2013

  3. Are you boys just upset because the Black Liberal President has done more for the LGBT Communities than your own white republican families ever will?

    Comment by Shalala — January 21, 2013 @ 1:26 pm - January 21, 2013

  4. Are you boys just upset because the Black Liberal President has done more for the LGBT Communities than your own white republican families ever will?

    Comment by Shalala — January 21, 2013 @ 1:26 pm – January 21, 2013

    LOL, are you serious?

    Obama has decreased middle-class income, increased unemployment, driven millions of people out of the workforce as discouraged workers, pushed up taxes, vastly increased health insurance premiums and cost, and larded on an additional $6 TRILLION of debt.

    Next on his list: confiscate guns, ban any criticism of him or his Obama Party, punish and shut down businesses and churches that dare to disagree with him, and forcibly redistribute savings, i.e. 401(k) funds, from those of us who work to his lazy supporters who won’t.

    But of course, homophobic bigots like you don’t think of gays as people. As far as you know, gays don’t have jobs, don’t have businesses, don’t pay taxes, don’t own guns, don’t buy health insurance, don’t have religious beliefs, and don’t have retirement savings; therefore your Obama’s attack on all of these won’t hurt gays in the least.

    Read this. It explains beautifully just how your incompetent racist Obama has damaged this country and all of the LGBT people in it.

    And if you were anything other than a racist and homophobic bigot, you could recognize that. But you’re not. You’re just a typical lazy Obama voter, a welfare tick who has never done anything but sit around in a diaper waiting for the gubmint to pay your bills for you, like your lazy worthless liberal parents.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 21, 2013 @ 2:57 pm - January 21, 2013

  5. Little Kiwi is back, I see. That he keeps coming back here indidcates to me that his comments are just projection of his own misery and that he is filled with some sort of obsessive envy.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 21, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - January 21, 2013

  6. Well when you have a need for big government to validate your existence, free thinking gays are horrifying to him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 21, 2013 @ 6:20 pm - January 21, 2013

  7. Is this the dream coming to fruition? That we still judge people by their skin color and group them together based on it? The government forms that track people’s race and allocate funds based on what skin color people are, programs like the Violence Initiative http://psychroaches.blogspot.com/2011/05/nimh-violence-initiative-junk-medicine.html, calling all criticism of the president racist, race-based hiring with affirmative action, dividing the nation through language throgh the influx of illegal immigrants who deman we change our language to their’s or else it’s racist…There is also big money in racism: lawyers, social workers, race baiters, and government jobs.

    Comment by Paul — January 21, 2013 @ 6:33 pm - January 21, 2013

  8. 3.Are you boys just upset because the Black Liberal President has done more for the LGBT Communities than your own white republican families ever will?

    Such a one-trick pony…

    Comment by RSG — January 21, 2013 @ 10:00 pm - January 21, 2013

  9. “King’s words are recited over and over and for too many people they have become a rallying cry without meaning, deep belief or principle.

    It is imperative that we remember Martin Luther King for his principled stand …”

    “Now, don’t think you have me in a bind today. I’m not talking about communism. What I’m talking about is far beyond communism… What I’m saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.”

    Comment by Passing By — January 22, 2013 @ 1:40 am - January 22, 2013

  10. Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman calls Republicans “evil” “mean” and “nuts.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for the MFM to condemn her divisive, polarizing rhetoric.

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 5:06 am - January 22, 2013

  11. Passing Gas finds what he wants to repeat in King’s “Where do We Go From Here” speech to the 11th SCLC Convention and skips over the core of King’s message:

    In other words, “Your whole structure (Yes) must be changed.” [applause] A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will “thingify” them and make them things. (Speak) And therefore, they will exploit them and poor people generally economically. (Yes) And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and it will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. (Yes) [applause]

    What I’m saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, “America, you must be born again!” [applause] (Oh yes)

    And so, I conclude by saying today that we have a task, and let us go out with a divine dissatisfaction. (Yes)

    Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. (All right)

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. (Yes sir)

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history (Yes), and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality integrated education.

    Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.

    Let us be dissatisfied (All right) until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. (Yeah) Let us be dissatisfied. [applause]

    Let us be dissatisfied (Well) until every state capitol (Yes) will be housed by a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with his God.

    Let us be dissatisfied [applause] until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. (Yes)

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together (Yes), and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid.

    Let us be dissatisfied (Yes), and men will recognize that out of one blood (Yes) God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. (Speak sir)

    Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, “White Power!” when nobody will shout, “Black Power!” but everybody will talk about God’s power and human power. [applause]

    Read down that dissatisfaction list and measure the progress that has been made in driving the Democrats who created the whole mess into the ground.

    Now read down the list of dissatisfactions and mark the areas where the Democrat Black Plantation Party has kept people in government controlled poverty.

    How is “capitalism” supposed to employ black men in prison? How has capitalism sent teen pregnancy among black girls through the roof? How has capitalism made government housing projects into ghettos? How did capitalism create the Detroit of today? What has capitalism got to do with the murder rate in Chicago?

    Martin Luther King Day is a national holiday and the schools are closed in honor of his memory. And the kids go to the mall. Is that social justice and socialism at work or do the kids prefer capitalism?

    We have endless “Affirmative Action” and hidden quota systems and Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have bilked personal fortunes out of capitalism using the threat rent-a-mob tactics. The NAACP turns a blind eye to the pathologies of the self-inflicted wounds in the self-segregating black “communities.”

    Progressives seek to destroy blacks who achieve success “the old fashioned way” by earning merit and climbing the ladder. Thomas Sowell looked at what the Democrats did to Herman Cain and observed:

    The same mainstream media whose responses to proven charges against Bill Clinton was, “Let’s move on,” is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.

    What role does race play in all this?

    It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.

    The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on election day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.

    (….)

    In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future — and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.

    So, the Democrats destroy a man because of the color of his skin. The man can not be merely defeated in an honest contest. He must be destroyed.

    How does this stack up with what Martin Luther King said: Let us be dissatisfied (All right) until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. (Yeah) Let us be dissatisfied. [applause]?

    The nasty, vile secret is that the Democrats ignore Martin Luther King’s context and meaning and they go for the jugular using Martin Luther King’s words as weasel words in committing their villainy. Democrats adore the phrase “content of their character” as an invitation to do utter assassination of the character of those they despise.

    Apparently Passing Gas finds Martin Luther King all hot for socialism and opposed to capitalism through his little exercise in pulling a phrase of a speech out of its context. Such twisting for practical demagoguery is what leads to the rampant character assassination of conservative blacks while using Martin Luther King for justification.

    In that respect, Progressives see Martin Luther King as the best available useful idiot for their means to the end which they are determined establish.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 9:55 am - January 22, 2013

  12. V the K taps into a real commie tool @#10:

    “These same people believe if you do not work, you are lazy,” Fudge told the symposium, which was aired on C-SPAN. “These same people believe that if your children don’t get a good education, something is wrong with you. These are the craziest people I have seen in my life. Just absolute nuts. They don’t understand that the government’s job is to take care of its people.

    Is that the message of Martin Luther King or race baiting for “social justice” and a call for Mighty Black Community Organizer Black Mouse to come and save the day?

    Truth be told, socialism/communism is the goal of these Progressives and they will never accept the end of slavery. No treaty, no reparation, no nothing can ever erase the stain of slavery for them. Permanent and ever increasing welfare with a steadily rising standard of living is their price to be extracted on “them.” “Them” being those who are “lucky” or “fortunate” or have the “advantages” of the “accident of birth” blah, blah, blah.

    Let’s just cut to the chase. I want the government to take care of me NOW and in the style to which I would like to be accustomed. Please fill up my bank account as I intend to start ordering stuff right away.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 10:20 am - January 22, 2013

  13. “I have a dream” turned out to be “I have a scheme.” Fifty years after Mr. King and all his works, what he appeared to promise has turned out to be a resounding failure, fatal, IMHO, to the American republic. No praise or admiration from me for the reign of race hucksters, gangstas and baby mamas this serial plagiarist and serial adulterer has unleashed on us. Fabled Birmingham today (and the sad liturgy in Washington) reveals what this has all really been about.

    Comment by EssEm — January 22, 2013 @ 12:02 pm - January 22, 2013

  14. “[Heliotroppo] finds what he wants to repeat in King’s “Where do We Go From Here” speech to the 11th SCLC Convention and skips over the core of King’s message [since he fails to engage the thesis of the speech].”

    “….[finding] Martin Luther King all hot for socialism and opposed to capitalism [????] through his little exercise in pulling a phrase of a speech out of its context.” [How you can defend that claim from King's conclusion quoted at #9 is a mystery--King says no such thing. "It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."].

    [As for the rest, you disagree with King. Got it]

    “Democrats [discounting Civil Rights legislation passed by Johnson, etc] who created the whole mess into the ground [with saintly Republicans and their subsequent "Southern Strategy" held blameless ...]” [as it cannot possibly be a burden of shame that is held by both parties...oh no!]

    Comment by Passing By — January 22, 2013 @ 12:59 pm - January 22, 2013

  15. Passing Gas,

    In all honesty your commenting “style” is so convoluted that I am unable to decipher much of anything from it. It suffers from being too cute by half while being ham-handedly obscure.

    Sitting at Lincoln’s deathbed Edward M. Stanton proclaimed: “Now he belongs to the ages.” From that moment on, Lincoln became legend.

    The same is true of Martin Luther King. He is legend and belongs to the ages.

    As with all legends, the territory is alive with revisionists and those who claim to know the “real” man behind the legend.

    That is not me and I have no interest whatsoever in playing revisionist hand grenades with anyone. Your “comments” border on illiteracy, so you in particular prove yourself to be a rather obvious waste of time in regard to any effort to engage you intellectually. I will not presume that you are unintelligent, but you clearly prove that you are incapable of displaying any evidence of latent wit or wisdom.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 2:37 pm - January 22, 2013

  16. [Avoid the issue if you must--you clearly don't like getting called when you make an obvious boo-boo: to whit]
    ““….[finding] Martin Luther King all hot for socialism and opposed to capitalism [????] through his little exercise in pulling a phrase of a speech out of its context.”

    [How you can defend that claim from King's conclusion quoted at #9 is a mystery to all--King says no such thing: "It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."].”

    “As with all legends, the territory is alive with revisionists and those who claim to know the “real” man behind the legend.” [Absolutely true, you revisionist...]

    Comment by Passing By — January 22, 2013 @ 4:06 pm - January 22, 2013

  17. Let the record be clear:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was originally the work of President Kennedy and championed by President Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination. It was DOA to a lot of Congressional Democrats.

    Here is how it became law:

    •original House version 61% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voting “Yea.”

    •cloture vote to end the Democrat’s 87 day filibuster in the Senate= 66% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voting “Yea.”

    •Senate version of the bill= 69% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans voting “Yea.”

    •Senate version voted on by the house= 63% of Democrats and 80% of Republicans.

    •The House had 244 Democrats and 171 Republicans voting on the final bill. 153 Democrats voted “Yea.”

    •The Senate had 67 Democrats and 33 Republicans voting on the bill. 46 of the Democrats voted “Yea.”

    The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the follow-up on the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was passed under Eisenhower with similar Republican Congressional strength in off-setting the Democrats.

    As to the charge by Passing Gas of the “Republicans and their subsequent ‘Southern Strategy’ “ we are dealing here with pure misrepresentation and revisionism. The voting in the South (former Confederate states) began to turn to Republicans in the 1930′s and finally became the stronghold of the Republicans in the 1990′s. This was largely fueled by economics and not race. The politics of racism in the South was nearly the sole property of the Democrats throughout.

    Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America records that President Johnson told President Kennedy’s aide, Ted Sorenson: “I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.”

    Compare that to what political “strategy” expert Kevin Phillips was quoted as saying in the New York Times interview (5/17/1970): “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

    That was the essence of the so-called “Southern Strategy.”

    Jimmy Carter: “I have no trouble pitching for Wallace votes and black votes at the same time.”

    The sociological facts are that after WWII the South became a powerful part of the national economy and grew a new and large class which created suburbs and “modernized” the old South. These folks voted their economic interests and strongly tended Republican. Meanwhile, paradoxically, the blue collar whites stayed with the Democrats along with the overwhelming majority of blacks.

    However, the revisionists find much greater purchase in claiming that the Republican “Southern Strategy” was to go after the rednecks. Statistics do not bear that out, but it demagogues well outside of the South. And that is what Passing Gas most wants to believe as it suits his purposes in promoting his agenda.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 5:47 pm - January 22, 2013

  18. Passing Gas posted this @ #9:

    What I’m saying to you this morning is communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say questioning the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.”

    I responded @ #11 which brought Passing Gas back in full gibberish mode @ #14 in which he/she put these words together:

    “….[finding] Martin Luther King all hot for socialism and opposed to capitalism [????] through his little exercise in pulling a phrase of a speech out of its context.” [How you can defend that claim from King's conclusion quoted at #9 is a mystery--King says no such thing. "It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."].

    I am too dull to understand how Passing Gas attempts to communicate. But I might, possibly begin to understand what breeze is blowing up his skirt.

    Martin Luther King was investigated by Bobby Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover for possible and suspected ties with the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA.) The CPUSA latched onto King and has often cited the speech he gave at Riverside Church entitled “Beyond Vietnam” in which he called for a US “revolution of values.” King’s last book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? called for a guaranteed national income.

    The King campaign learned early to avoid entanglement with Communism as it ran cross purposes with its main objectives. However, the Johnson Administration was busy building the infrastructure of “The Great Society” in which the national government pushed into many areas previously left largely to the states. The Office of Economic Opportunity, Volunteers in Service to America, Model Cities Program, Upward Bound, Community Action Agencies, Head Start, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Teacher Corps, Medicare, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Public Broadcasting Act, Urban Mass Transit Act, etc. all came into being.

    King certainly favored a national government role in his political agenda and as Passing Gas quoted, King claimed that “capitalism forgets that life is social.”

    This is the interesting part of what Passing Gas chose to quote: “And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.”

    OK, what is this alternative which is a “higher synthesis” between communism and (its antithesis) capitalism? If there is a choice other than some sort of “benevolent” state socialism, I will have to admit to being ignorant. It certainly can’t be fascism. Perhaps King was hot for a theocracy? Was he looking toward oligarchy? On what evidence?

    At the end of the quote Passing Gas pasted up @ #9 are words that he found reason to include in boldface: “problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.”

    It is with these bold-faced words that Passing Gas goes typically (for him) in to full bore chickensh*t mode. You see, Passing Gas is not a person of principle or even enough courage to take a basic belief system stand. I say this, because if he had any much character or integrity, he would clearly express what those boldfaced words mean to him.

    So, Passing Gas, are these “triple evils interlaced” and what is the “lace” that “interlaces” them? Since King does not say, it falls on you to speak for him from your point of view. You chose the quote and posted it. Therefore, you either have a defensible point of reason for doing so or you are without merit and just ….. well ….. passing gas.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 6:38 pm - January 22, 2013

  19. Looks like “you are without merit and just ….. well ….. passing gas.”

    Comment by heliotrope — January 23, 2013 @ 10:43 am - January 23, 2013

  20. [Apparently, Heliotroppo does understand the points raised #9.

    Two thoughts on #17: “That was the essence of the so-called “Southern Strategy.”” We are agreed then that racism played a role. I grant economics had a role. Heliotroppo’s sources are not enough to support his contention that it was “largely fueled by economics and not race”. I would point out that the wikipedia article he used on Philips’ strategy supports my contention about the centrality of race. Further, if you read the article in question, you will see that at the time the racial angle is not hidden at all (read Viorst’s comments, additional comments from the “controversial” Phillips in the article, and the asides by the reporter in the piece). Race played a clear role post 1964 in Republican political calculations. The Wiki article has some juicy quotes from Mehlman & Atwater that are also useful to consider.

    “The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the follow-up on the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was passed under Eisenhower with similar Republican Congressional strength in off-setting the Democrats.” As Caro has shown in Vol III & IV of his autobiography of Johnson, Eisenhower passed diddly squat; and if there is a reason for the Civil Rights legislation of 1957 & 1964, it was Johnson. I acknowledge the racist strains that went through Southern Democrats at this time; but it is no accident that Thurman switched parties and became a Republican in 1964 (No Southern Republicans voted for the Bill).

    Two thoughts on #18: “OK, what is this alternative which is a “higher synthesis”.” Given that King died before he could flesh out his thinking, we are left with conjectures, though the quote gives us some ideas. He called for a different economic structure, but he is unclear as to what that would require, though he argues that the capitalist system is inadequate to the task. Part of it, I think, is that King looked for a middle path between the dictates of efficiency in increasing the economic pie and the distribution of that pie. In his speech, it is obvious that he thinks that distribution was unjust, supported by an economic system that worked against people of color. Given current income inequality, there is little reason to think that he would have changed his mind today.

    If we are talking about “chickens*t mode” that would also include Heliotroppo’s revisionist desire to state King’s message–as a “principled stand on healing the divisions of racism”–whilst ignoring King’s clear message of the need to deal with economic injustice and the system that supported it.]

    Comment by Passing By — January 23, 2013 @ 10:43 pm - January 23, 2013

  21. If we are talking about “chickens*t mode” that would also include Heliotroppo’s revisionist desire to state King’s message–as a “principled stand on healing the divisions of racism”–whilst ignoring King’s clear message of the need to deal with economic injustice and the system that supported it.]

    Comment by Passing By — January 23, 2013 @ 10:43 pm – January 23, 2013

    LOL.

    Heliotrope is stating King’s words, referencing King’s writings, and drawing direct links between statements.

    Meanwhile, what do we see from the screaming Cas?

    As Caro has shown in Vol III & IV of his autobiography of Johnson, Eisenhower passed diddly squat

    “Diddly squat” is not a fact, it is your opinion. State facts, please, and provide direct references to page numbers and chapters, Cas; your failure to do so will demonstrate that you are not arguing in good faith and not willing to provide basic references.

    No Southern Republicans voted for the Bill

    Again, no documentation, no definition, no references. Please provide the following:

    - The specific “bill” which is referenced, including number and date

    - The definition of “Southern”

    Again, Cas, failure to provide either will will demonstrate that you are not arguing in good faith and not willing to provide basic references.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 3:51 pm - January 24, 2013

  22. “LOL. [Agreed, Heliotroppe's position is laughable]

    Heliotrope is stating [some of] King’s words, referencing [some of] King’s writings, and drawing direct links between [some of] King’s statements [whilst ignoring those bits of King's thinking he doesn't like; as you appear to be doing right now].”

    “Again, no documentation, no definition, no references.” [Since you and Heliotrope use Wikipedia as an authority on occasions, go check the article that Heliotrope used and of which you clearly approve. Feel free to consult Caro’s books; e.g., the last 150 pages of Vol III deal with the 1957 Bill].

    Comment by Passing By — January 24, 2013 @ 4:58 pm - January 24, 2013

  23. My apologies

    Comment by Passing By — January 24, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - January 24, 2013

  24. As a point of clarification, Caro did not write an autobiography of LBJ. Not one volume, let alone four.

    As a seasoned academic, Wiki-anything is not my clear choice for much of anything. However, it is an easy link and I will always use it for informal commenting in casual give and take when I know the referenced facts to be valid. The Pomposity of attacking wikipedia is duly noted, but I barely care.

    I do not agree that “racism” played a role in the Southern Strategy in any but the most tangental of ways. Race played a role, but only Progressive pile drivers find race and racism as synonymous. In the Pomposity sense, the Democrat Affirmative Action scheme was racism. Therefore, LBJ was a racist. What a joy psuedo-intellectualism is to behold.

    ” …it is no accident that Thurman switched parties and became a Republican in 1964 (No Southern Republicans voted for the Bill).” It is to laugh.

    Indeed Thurman [Thurmond] switched parties in 1964 and voted along with Barry Goldwater against the civil rights act as being too intrusive on states rights. Other Southern Republicans also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as did the Southern Democrats who vastly outnumbered the Southern Republicans. Your point is?

    “….whilst ignoring King’s clear message of the need to deal with economic injustice and the system that supported it.” BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Martin Luther King was at least a socialist and likely a communist at heart. But he was savvy enough not to let out more snakes than he could handle. His objective was black civil rights and income equality was too far down the road for him to muck up his campaign by overreaching. There is absolutely no way possible that any of us can know where he would have gone had he not been assassinated. Only the race pimps and rent-a-mob Progressives play that game.

    Just to irritate you, I really want you to know that I was on the staff of a Southern Senator (Democrat) and I got to know Johnson’s staff pretty well as they fanned out after he went to the Vice Presidency. Kennedy treated Johnson like a pariah and never missed an opportunity to humiliate him. Johnson was permitted to spend less than two hours alone with Kennedy in all of 1963. Johnson was a hick to the Kennedy clan, but they were no match for Johnson’s amiable duplicity and he played them like a violin after he became President. Johnson thoroughly savored making a Harvard boy kiss his Texas a$$. Johnson made a fortune and a career manipulating a weak spot in someone’s ego. And the Harvard boys had gigantic egos and multiple weak spots just waiting to be massaged. They loved to be kissed while being screwed.

    If you ever get around to reading the autobiography that Caro did not write, you may learn something of the man.

    [Commment slightly edited/shortened, at commentor's request. --Jeff]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 6:37 pm - January 24, 2013

  25. “As a point of clarification, Caro did not write an autobiography of LBJ. Not one volume, let alone four.” [Heliotroppo is right; Caro wrote a 4 vol biography & growing. The argument & evidence remains]

    “I do not agree that “racism” played a role in the Southern Strategy in any but the most tangental [tangential] of ways..”
    [Even as Nixon's strategist (and other GOPers) makes clear that it does--OK; that makes no sense at all... Heliotroppo rejects the evidence he introduced earlier without explaining why. Heliotroppo is clearly a "seasoned academented" individual].

    “Other Southern Republicans also voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as did the Southern Democrats who vastly outnumbered the Southern Republicans. Your point is [that Southern Republicans, along with Southern Democrats, shared a similar understanding of their constituency's racism and were happy to exploit it for potential electoral gain, something Phillips (for example) is candid about].

    “Martin Luther King was at least a socialist and likely a communist at heart.” [So Heliotroppo and I are agreed that: “In his speech, it is obvious that he thinks that distribution was unjust, supported by an economic system that worked against people of color. ” And this works against Heliotroppo's initially simplistic characterization of King's ideas and life's work].

    “Just to irritate you,” [Heliotroppo will add an apparently irrelevant paragraph burnishing his past work credentials, concerning Johnson's ineffectiveness as a VP. What is your point, exactly, Heliotroppo?]

    Comment by Passing By — January 24, 2013 @ 7:48 pm - January 24, 2013

  26. OK, Passing By,

    It was a biography. No one cares to read Caro’s autobiography. You meant Thurmond. The Southern Strategy involved weighing the possible black vote against the white vote that would be leaving the Democrat party. You brand that “racism” while not branding pandering to the black vote racism. Your sensibilities over the “proper” use of a crass designation is too cute by half.

    I do not agree that King thought “distribution was unjust, supported by an economic system that worked against people of color.” I would be happy to agree if King said as much in his body of works. Those words are yours and your interpretation. You may project to your heart’s content. I merely noted that King was at least a socialist and likely a communist. I have no clue where he would have taken the movement had he lived longer.

    You are not an honest student. You are, at best, a polemicist. Your shallow understanding of the King civil rights era is arranged according to your preferred views. That is singularly not uncommon, but it is close-minded and dishonest.

    One advantage to having lived through those times and relatively close to many of the actual events and players is a perspective of the several sides and the forces at play.

    [Last couple sentences removed at commentor's request --Jeff]

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 9:55 pm - January 24, 2013

  27. So once again, Cas has failed to provide the simple, basic facts, links, and references requested.

    Which again, per statement, indicates that Cas is not arguing in good faith.

    Not a surprise, but always glad to have it confirmed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2013 @ 11:52 pm - January 24, 2013

  28. You have come out of your [stupid technique of being obscure] to reveal your complacent self satisfaction with over-simplifying complex times through the application of sketchy knowledge.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 24, 2013 @ 9:55 pm – January 24, 2013

    Oh, I wouldn’t even go that far, heliotrope.

    Cas/Passing By doesn’t even bother with “sketchy knowledge”. It simply doesn’t have any, as we see by its failure to provide links, to provide actual references, or anything of the sort.

    Instead, what it does is regurgitate liberal dogma and attempt to rearrange and twist what little bits and scabs it hears, presumes, and “passes by” to create a tortured Play-Doh support structure for that which it already has deemed incontrovertible fact in the absence of any evidence to prove it so. If one studies science under various totalitarian regimes, one easily finds that there have been numerous Cas’s throughout history, people for whom facts are an impediment, logic an anathema, and evidence merely an obstacle to be steamrolled in the pursuit of Dear Leader’s/Der Fuhrer’s/Il Duce’s/Premier’s ideological goals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 12:01 am - January 25, 2013

  29. “You brand that “racism” while not branding pandering to the black vote racism.” [Really... where, exactly? Dodging the argument concerning Republican racism again...]

    “I do not agree that King thought “distribution was unjust, supported by an economic system that worked against people of color.” I would be happy to agree if King said as much in his body of works.” [But you are happy to stick with a small conception of what King thought and call it "a perspective of the several sides and the forces at play"--now that is too cute by half].

    You have come out of your [stupid technique of mindless rhetorical tricks] to reveal your complacent self satisfaction with over-simplifying complex times through the application of sketchy knowledge. [I agree indeed that you do this Heliotroppo. Quietly ditching arguments that are shown to be wrong-headed without realizing that by doing so you undercut your own argument concerning Republican racism in the "Southern Strategy"; hiding behind "biography" jeers to avoid engaging arguments that place Johnson's role as a Democratic Senate Leader and President in passing Civil Rights front and center rather than non-Southern Republican voting efforts which you champion... because (?) ... no one has any idea. In any case, to discuss that would require an honest argument. And you are not going to provide one--"honest academic". You said it best, and this thread shows clearly that it definitely applies to you, Heliotroppo:

    "You are, at best, a polemicist. Your ... understanding of the King civil rights era is arranged according to your preferred views. That is singularly not uncommon, but it is close-minded and dishonest"].

    Comment by Passing By — January 25, 2013 @ 12:02 am - January 25, 2013

  30. “So once again, [Thelma] has failed to provide [and engage] the simple, basic facts, links, and references [offered]. Which again, … indicates that [Thelma] is not arguing in good faith. Not a surprise…”

    “[Thelma/North Dallas Thirty] doesn’t even bother with “sketchy knowledge”. It simply doesn’t have any, as we see by its failure to [recognize or even read offered] links [that it fears will contradict its limited perspective], to provide actual references, or anything of the sort. Instead, what it does is regurgitate ["conservative"] dogma… ”

    “You are, at best, a polemicist. Your … understanding … is arranged according to your preferred views. That is singularly not uncommon, but it is close-minded and dishonest”.

    “… Dear Leader’s/Der Fuhrer’s/Il Duce’s/Premier’s ideological goals”

    Comment by Passing By — January 25, 2013 @ 2:55 am - January 25, 2013

  31. Passing Gas,

    Take your high dungeon ball gown off and parse me. Grab my offending weak conjectures and smack them down with your scholarly verbal sledge hammer and provide the proof.

    I can take it.

    Or ….

    Drop the inane [ ] echo chamber, nanananananana game and state your point or contention or surmise or dream or Will-o’-Wisp ignis fatuus or whatever stokes you up and state your case.

    Your propensity for twisting your kaleidoscopic palaver and refereeing by amorphous rules is all beeswax and sophistry. Any knave could do better.

    Instead of perfidiousness, try openness and honesty. You might actually gain a modicum of respect which could turn into honest debate if you can stand to forego the chicanery.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 9:57 am - January 25, 2013

  32. No worries, Heliotrope.

    Cas/Passing Gas repeats everyone else’s words for the same reason a child does; to annoy and to upset.

    What you are asking it to do is beyond its capabilities. It isn’t here to debate or reason; it’s just here to attack and upset those who it knows are its superiors, like a gadfly around the heels of a horse.

    The more it comments, the more it reveals its inferiority. As you know, we laugh about it and at it regularly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 25, 2013 @ 12:46 pm - January 25, 2013

  33. Yep. Passing Gas is all mange and no management. It has an immune-suppressive hormone imbalance causing an inability to maintain acceptable cognitive performance when stressed by having to produce evidence of minimal common sense.

    I imagine there is some grouping of four or five letters used to make the same diagnosis on Twitter. Anyway, we know it is carrying a load.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 25, 2013 @ 1:23 pm - January 25, 2013

  34. “I can take it.”

    [I bet you can, Heliotroppo. But I am not particularly interested, given what this thread shows me of your behavior. I see you in much the same way you see me--pompous, arrogant, intellectually dishonest and lazy. That is hardly the basis for a mutually productive discussion/argument, now is it? Given that reality, it is much easier to make the points I wish to make, "in passing", and avoid getting bogged down in the sort of "palaver" (nice word choice by the way) that would surely follow with an all in cage-match you suggest. One thing: I give back what is given to me. If I see that you are making a good faith effort to avoid the craptacular approaches I have seen you indulge in here, I will return your efforts in kind, and in good faith. Otherwise, passing by is enough.

    By the way, you and Thelma make a nice couple. Cute, really.]

    Comment by Passing By — January 26, 2013 @ 2:33 am - January 26, 2013

  35. That’s absolutely right, Passing By; you aren’t actually interested in debate or exchange of ideas, but just dropping your turds in the punchbowl and running away.

    Of course, you practice the usual Cas methodology, which is to blame others for your problems, others for your behavioral choices, and others for your failings.

    But, since you acknowledge that you have treated Heliotrope like crap, then by your own impeccable logic, Heliotrope is justified in treating you the same way, and your whining about it becomes the most obvious and blatant hypocrisy.

    Conservatives need not pull their punches when dealing with your kind, Cass. Indeed, since you’ve demonstrated that you have no respect for them in the first place, there’s no need for conservatives to treat you as anything other than the racist, sexist bigots that you scream THEY are.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 26, 2013 @ 10:19 am - January 26, 2013

  36. Permit me, please, in the most gentlemanly of tones to ask for a little clarification.

    Is Passing By refusing to identify what I have written that is in dispute and to offer evidence of why the dispute exists?

    Am I to derive some understanding that Passing By is actually just a Drive By shooter sending stray missiles and resultant shrapnel just for the sport of it?

    If that be the case, what earthly need is there for Drive By’s words, since they are used in no meaningful way to illuminate the topic of the thread?

    Hopefully, no offense is taken to my queries as no offense is intended.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 26, 2013 @ 2:36 pm - January 26, 2013

  37. “Is Passing By refusing to identify what I have written that is in dispute and to offer evidence of why the dispute exists?” [No]

    “Am I to derive some understanding that Passing By is actually just a Drive By shooter sending stray missiles and resultant shrapnel just for the sport of it?” [No. I had not considered the possibility that heliotrope was unaware of the apparently non-rational arguments he may have offered in this thread. Then again, given the number of "heavenly commentators" that circle him at Gay Patriot and who hold him in high esteem, it might be possible that in such a helio-centric environment,it might be hard to hear some feedback concerning what he writes, from those not in his orbit].

    [So, an example from a point discussed that led me to my observation regarding heliotrope's approach to argument in this thread: Maybe it was just an intrusion of nostalgia for an earlier and perhaps happier time, but raising his work experience with a Southern Democratic Senator and waxing lyrical of LBJ's weakness as VP, struck me as a non-sequiter, completely irrelevant to LBJ's work as Democratic Senate Leader and Democratic President, when he assured passage of the two Civil Rights Bills. Maybe it was meant to "put me in my place," to trust the superiority of his own experience" (ah, a possible argument to authority) rather than reading Caro's exhaustive and evidence rich work. Who knows. However, with "jeers about autobiographies" and some judicious silence, it did enable heliotrope to avoid dealing with the weaknesses in the argument he had raised concerning who really passed the Civil Rights Bills (True answer, as far as I can tell--Non-Southern Democrats and Non-Southern Republicans with a helping hand primarily from the "leadership" of Democrat LBJ, not Eisenhower, et al)].

    “Hopefully, no offense is taken [and] no offense is intended.”

    Comment by Cas — January 27, 2013 @ 10:11 pm - January 27, 2013

  38. “Is Passing By refusing to identify what I have written that is in dispute and to offer evidence of why the dispute exists?” [No]

    Whereupon, Cas [Passing By] moves on with identifying “what I have written that is in dispute and to offer evidence why the dispute exists.” Totally predictable.

    “Am I to derive some understanding that Passing By is actually just a Drive By shooter sending stray missiles and resultant shrapnel just for the sport of it?” [No. I had not considered the possibility that heliotrope was unaware of the apparently non-rational arguments he may have offered in this thread….

    Well, I am still “unaware of the apparently non-rational arguments [which I] may have offeredon this thread. What a pathetic wheelchair of legal-speak Cas has chosen to ride.

    did enable heliotrope to avoid dealing with the weaknesses in the argument he had raised concerning who really passed the Civil Rights Bills

    Wow! After silly bluster and blather, Cas finally states her grievance.

    I can not take responsibility for what jaundiced the eyes of Cas when it read the numbers I reported @ #17 concerning the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In both the House and the Senate, the bill would not have passed for a striking lack of a majority of Democrats voting for it. Furthermore, the number of Republicans voting for it in the House overwhelmed the number of Democrats voting for it. In the Senate, the Republicans had far fewer numbers, but 80% of the Republicans voted for the bill.

    Now Cas would like to bring up the southern Republicans who did not vote for it. Hello? They were were a pitifully small part of the Republican membership as compared the huge southern Democrat membership which voted against it.

    All of this convoluted Passing By and Cas topic shifting manipulation began with a discussion of Martin Luther King and ended with the “unaware of the apparently non-rational arguments [which I] may have offeredon this thread” weak legalese double-speak.

    Cas always has to have the last word. It will always be a further twisting and permutation of some nit-picking inference. Cas is welcome to it.

    I believe my case is clear enough for intelligent people to see the game that is afoot.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 1, 2013 @ 10:58 am - February 1, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.