Obviously we know who the American left and BLM stands with  |
| “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” |
Obviously we know who the American left and BLM stands with |
| “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” |
18 comments:
I truly believe Malcom had a transformation after his hajj and discovered what a POS Elijah Muhhamed was and he disavowed the hatred of the a Nation of Islam
Neither matter. Now its all about Labron and Kaepernick.
That’s the sad part
But don’t forget the debasement of women that Cardi B provides
The clash is going on right now in this country, and the question is,
Will the thinking of FDR and the Dems prevail, or the thinking of RR and the Repubs?
"I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don’t think that it will be based upon the color of the skin, as Elijah Muhammad had taught it.
--MALCOLM X
The conservative belief in racism as an individual sin or moral failing, rather than a system that requires community and governmental reform, makes King’s writings on love convenient fodder for warm-and-fuzzy quotes.
It no longer performs the work he originally intended—bringing about social justice for morality’s sake.
King saw nonviolent direct action as a means of protesters presenting their bodies as an appeal to the conscience of the larger community, in an effort to create a beloved community. Alongside the theater of protest, King’s rhetoric performed the role of narration and monologue that heightened the drama between oppressed and oppressor. He was adamant that his nonviolence did not constitute passivity or mollification, but a militant commitment to change.
Modern activists do not need to take this same tactic to effect change.
The legacy of King’s militant nonviolence lives on in the pockets of mass protests that emerge across the country following an injustice.
President Biden is appealing to America’s innate goodness, a call to fulfill the promise set forth by its Founding Fathers.
Malcolm X is no longer an influence. He used violence, Doctor King Jr. Did not.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/kings-message-of-nonviolence-has-been-distorted/557021/
This is so important it should all be printed here.
LA Times
Op-Ed:
Can Joe Biden flip American government from 'them' to 'us'?
Joseph J. Ellis
Sat, May 1, 2021, 5:00 AM
It is the oldest argument in American political history.
Indeed, its roots go back to the American founding. If you line up the most prominent founders, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall and George Washington stand on one side of the divide. Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and George Mason on the other. The enduring question is stunningly simple: Is national government “us” or “them”?
Washington and his cohort believed that only collective power could embody and act in the public interest;
Jefferson and company considered central government an intrusive evil.
We need a historical perspective on the cyclical pattern of what we might call the American dialogue in order to understand why Joe Biden’s presidency has all the earmarks of an inflection point. With the end of the first 100 days of his presidency this week, there is reason to believe that we may be at the cusp of a political shift from “them” to “us.” The epic failure of the Trump presidency in responding to the COVID crisis has created an open political lane for Biden and his team to run in, and thus far he has run farther and faster than anyone predicted.
The “us” side of the dialogue tends to dominate in times of acute crisis. There is a scholarly consensus that the three greatest American presidents are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. All three inherited a national crisis — respectively, the American Revolution, the Civil War and the Great Depression — that required a collective response. All three embraced the leadership challenge. And history has judged their responses favorably.
By employing a “first 100 days” metric, Biden all but announced that his role model was FDR. And like Roosevelt, Biden enjoys the advantage of following a conspicuous failure. Trump is his version of Herbert Hoover, who fiddled as the Great Depression deepened. Also, like FDR, most political pundits did not believe Biden was up to the task. And again like FDR, Biden has confounded his critics by going big.
Biden's nationalized vaccination program has exceeded its goals.
The size and scale of his economic recovery program dwarfs Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act.
His looming infrastructure proposal would help create 19 million jobs in the next decade,
and his American Family Plan would reweave the safety net FDR put in place.
Polls indicate that these federal initiatives are popular, even though Biden’s critics, echoing FDR’s, seek to demonize his agenda as socialism.
Biden's chief target is the legacy of Ronald Reagan. In all popular polls rating recent presidents, Reagan appears at or near the top of the list. His major achievement was to flip the political narrative of Roosevelt's New Deal, thereby making Washington “them,” a domestic version of the Evil Empire. One of his favorite jabs described the typical American citizen, terrified when a government official appears on his doorstep saying, “Hello, I’m from Washington, and I’m here to help.”
Reagan redefined Lincoln's Republican Party, building on Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy, to make it the party of antigovernment.
Now it provides political shelter for a diverse collection of interest groups that share grievances with federal power:
evangelicals opposed to abortion rights sanctioned in Roe vs. Wade;
gun advocates who believe that the 2nd Amendment provides unlimited rights to own and carry firearms;
white supremacists who regard Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream as a nightmare;
and, most influentially,
the very wealthy who are committed to reduced taxes on the rich
and limits on federal regulation of corporations.
Biden is attempting to flip the narrative again.
Suppose the government official that knocks on your door is a National Guard volunteer offering to vaccinate your family against COVID-19?
Or a Postal Service mail carrier delivering a $4,000 check from the Treasury Department?
Or a labor contractor from the Transportation Department offering a well-paying job rebuilding the country’s roads and bridges?
Your grandfather could have told you about this kind of “us” experience because the Civilian Conservation Corps hired him and rescued the family from poverty.
But your father was too young to remember.
Historians will remind us that FDR enjoyed a major political advantage, a huge Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Biden not only has razor-thin majorities but must negotiate the labyrinthian parliamentary blockades that have made the Senate the final resting place of most Democratic legislation for more than a generation.
Perhaps Biden can persuade enough senators to modify the chief obstacle:
the filibuster.
For instance, he and his allies could push a rule change that leaves it intact — senators can talk legislation into oblivion if they want to try — as long as the final vote requires, not “cloture” at 60 votes, but merely a simple majority.
(A strong case can be made that cloture is unconstitutional.)
Absent that reform, the entire Biden agenda, and the transition to “us” government, may very well fall victim to the will of a Republican minority.
The jury is still out. At moments of crisis in the past, "us" has usually prevailed.
Biden can also take heart that he has three iconic faces on Mt. Rushmore with him on the "us" side: Washington, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Do not feel sorry for the "them" side. They have Thomas Jefferson.
We should know the answer by the midterm.
____________
Historian Joseph J. Ellis' latest book is "American Dialogue: The Founders and Us."
Dr. King.
"Supply Shortages?
What?
Gasoline?
"Anchor Chris Wallace said, “Can you guarantee with all this spending that we are not going to have a new round of overheating the economy and serious inflation?""""
Council of Economic Advisers chair Cecilia Rouse said, “These are very serious concerns, and we know that coming out of an extremely deep recession that there are going to be bumps along the way. We expect that there is going to be supply chain disruptions. That will cause some transitory increases in prices""
So that is new.
Inflation sure only Biden/Harris , the Federal reserve chairman and the Three Neo-Socialist Stooges of CHT think it is not a concern.
But, more enlightening is She had been warning Biden of inflation and "supply chain disruptions."
Like food, water and gasoline?
Poor bottom.of the Ladder Jamie's.
He is so oppressed.
Malcolm and the Civil Rights Movement
Excerpts:
...Malcolm X was often asked his opinion of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. Initially scornful of King and his strategies, Malcolm later began to recognize the worth of — and even began tentative participation in — the movement...
Changing Times, Changing Notions
As time passed, Malcolm X became less confrontational towards King and the rest of the civil rights movement, a shift that came in tandem with his growing estrangement from Elijah Muhammad...
No Longer Adversaries
Bit by bit, Malcolm began a process of engagement with the movement. He went to Washington and witnessed debate on the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, running into King in the process. "I'm throwing myself into the heart of the civil rights struggle," Malcolm said. Where previously his separatism had meant no interest in voting, he now told Mississippi youth that he was with voter registration efforts "one thousand per cent." He accepted an invitation from the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee to speak in Selma, Alabama, and had conciliatory words for Coretta Scott King, whose husband was then in jail. "I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult," Malcolm said. "If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King." While never embracing King's Christianity or his commitment to non-violence, near the end of his life Malcolm X gave indications that he was willing to work with the fellow preacher, that they could be, if not exactly partners, then at least no longer adversaries in the quest for civil rights.
Condolences
In a telegram to Betty Shabazz after Malcolm's assassination, Martin Luther King Jr. said, "While we did not always see eye-to-eye on methods to solve the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt he had a great ability to put his finger on the existence and root of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems we face as a race...."
Jamie, when did you first realized you are "0pprested"?
Your topic.
Your debate.
Unless???
The conservative belief in racism as an individual sin or moral failing, rather than a system that requires community and governmental reform, makes King’s writings on love convenient fodder for warm-and-fuzzy quotes.
Kings writings and speech transform from a country where racism was an unspoken normalicy to a morally reprehensible condition. Outside of a small portion of nuts, all Americans think racism is abhorrent and not to be tolerated in polite society.
What these leftest race baiters are trying to so is turn racism into fuzzy and ill define social condition assigned to particular group (In this case all white people). There is never a solution to this kind of racism (nor is one really wanted) therefore, white people have a permanent stain that can never be absolve. A stain as permanent as a symbol sewn on a coat lapel that says racist.
Reagan redefined Lincoln's Republican Party, building on Richard Nixon’s so-called Southern Strategy
This is the most pernicious lie in politics but the Democrats with the help of the media keep pushing it.
The truth. There was no Southern Strategy unless you count to get souther Republicans to the polls. The Republican Party did not consist of southern Democrats who "flipped" to the Republican but rather Republicans migrating to the south for jobs and economic opportunity. The southern Democrats were still the same party that supported slavery, and passed segregation and Jim Crow laws.
This is the most pernicious lie in politics but the Democrats with the help of the media keep pushing it.
They can’t let go of a 50 year old lie that has been disproven repeatedly
Post a Comment