Posted by Tina
“I would like to be known as a person who is concerned about freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people.” ― Rosa Parks
Sunday marked the 57th anniversary of the day Rosa Parks defied local authority and took a seat near the front of the bus. This was an incredibly courageous decision at a time of unchallenged and blatant racial oppression in the old South. Mrs. Parks described her choice as an act motivated by fatigue…tired from working but also tired of being oppressed. Her spirit just said no. This action sparked a long bus protest in the local black community that ultimately led to the civil rights movement of the sixties.
Rosa Parks was an ordinary American who did something remarkable. The quote above reflects her extraordinary strength and suggests that she believed strongly in individual freedom and self-reliance. She was a humble person who worked hard. I admire her greatly…her spunk and her determination. I wish we had more people with her values in America.
So many people asked Rosa Parks to speak about her experience that she founded an Institute with the purpose of helping young people realize their full potential:
In February, 1987, she co-founded the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development with Ms. Elaine Eason Steele in honor of her husband, Raymond (1903-1977). The purpose is to motivate and direct youth not targeted by other programs to achieve their highest potential. Rosa Parks sees the energy of young people as a real force for change. It is among her most treasured themes of human priorities as she speaks to young people of all ages at schools, colleges, and national organizations around the world.
It’s common practice for the President to mark anniversaries with remarks that honor those involved for their courageous or outstanding achievements. President Obama chose his own unique way to remember the courage and determination of Rosa Parks.
I don’t know; somehow this photo seems to be all about Obama co-opting the day. I would think being elected president, twice, would be more than sufficient to feed his ego so that he could set aside his own needs and make her contribution a shining example to others. Isn’t that the point of commemoration?
I don’t see anything wrong with this. It’s an homage, a common way to honor someone. People who say he’s “co-opting” her struggle or being a narcissict are just projecting their pre-conceived biases onto the president. He can’t do anything right, so of course he’s just doing this to feed his ego.
And Adam Baldwin, try as you might with your dumb tweets, you will never make me dislike you. Your work on “Chuck” and “Firefly” gets you a permanent awesome pass in my book.
Homage to Rose Parks, hardly! Obama craves the center of attention so much he is willing to usurp the value of someone else’s efforts. So I disagree strongly with ‘its a homage’ to Rosa Parks, it was a blatant act to immortalize himself with other people’s biographies. He loves to insert himself as the primary object while honoring people. Recently Neil Armstrong and Vice President Biden come to mind, both he honored with pictures of himself. He makes it all about him, all the time. So how does he honor the the day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus? simple, Obama honored her achievements with a narcissistic picture of himself.
To each his own I guess.
A lot of us recall the President, or his staff, adding his name to the profiles of former presidents, something no other president has done. I’m reminded of the many times he has taken credit for killing Osama bin Laden and, like Bill Clinton before him, his use of the words I, me, and my is so prevalent that it’s embarrassing.
I think a memorial tribute should highlight the person being recognized.
And you are wrong about me, Chris. I would be happy to celebrate on these pages something this President has done that I believe is positive for our country. You see when it comes to his performance as president it isn’t about Obama…IT IS ABOUT THE COUNTRY!
As an aside, I don’t remember you having too many positive things to say about GWB…was it just pre-conceived bias? Were your criticisms just a matter of personal dislike or was it a matter of honest appraisal? I could look in the archives but why bother.
Speaking of W…this was his idea for honoring Rosa Parks:
http://www.politikditto.com/2005/12/bush-honors-rosa-parks-speaks-on.html
This is the man the left accused of starting Hurricane Katrina and deliberately allowing people to die and suffer. (Has anyone noticed that there are “folks” in new York that are still living without heat and water with winter coming on?) Media reports? Nah….the president’s got it handled.
I think you’re ignoring Obama’s personal reasons for this tribute. Had he lived at a different time, he could have found himself in the same situation as Parks. It is fitting that our first black president take a seat on the bus; it’s a reminder of how far we’ve come. I think it’s a great image, and I’m not going to let faux-outrage ruin it.
Rosa Parks reflected the most important of Republican ideals.
Chris: “I think you’re ignoring Obama’s personal reasons for this tribute.”
No. I can clearly see the evidence of his black heritage. That almost makes it more ridiculous. As I said he was elected to the highest office in the land twice…isn’t that enough evidence of how far we’ve come? A little humility on his part would have better showcased the bravery and determination…the utter tenacity and will of Rosa Parks. I love the woman!
“It is fitting that our first black president take a seat on the bus…”
It might be fitting during black history month.
Of course if black history month was more than a leftist cherry picked recounting of history more would be accomplished to uplift the black spirit and end a lot of faux racial division.
For instance how many Americans have been taught about John Hanson, a black man, who was the first President of the Continental Congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson
A bronze statue of Hanson sits in Statuary Hall in the Capitol.
Yes Pie, she certainly did.
I notice that whenever freedom and equality are mentioned people of a leftward bent run like heck. The quote at the top of the page with Parks photo has no meaning…yet it is the purpose for which she wanted to be remembered.
The picture of the president is a work of art. As such it speaks to each of us differently.
Chris finds it appropriate because it represents black heritage and the president can empathize or relate.
I see it as a symbol of oppression. He’s not moving forward, he remains firmly in the past. He isn’t celebrating black freedom, equality, justice and prosperity but instead is milking the oppression of the past.
I love Rosa Parks because she wasn’t having any of that segregation stuff…she just said no! She saw herself as a self-reliant independent free person.
A dude selling redistribution just can’t afford a symbol like that.
Civil Rights Hero,” Rosa Parks: USA Today reports that NEA teachers
have seen to it that every public school child in America knows their version of “The Rosa Parks’ Story.”
It goes something like this; a poor tired black seamstress took a seat in the front of a Montgomery, Alabama buss on December 1, 1955. The driver asked her to move to the back under the state’s Segregation law.
For refusing Parks was arrested.
Four days later Martin Luther King arrive in town and launched the Montgomery Buss Boycott. After 381 days, the Supreme Court ordered the city buses integrated. The True Parks’ Story: the behind-the-scene true story is that Rosa Parks was the secretary of the local NAACP.
The book, “Speak Now,” a left-wing history of the civil rights movement, states that in August of 1955, (four months before the bus incident) Parks attended the Highlander Folk School in Mount Eagle, Tennessee. The “school” was started in 1932 by Myles Horton and James Dombrowski, both members of the Communist Party.
“Speak Now” states that the schools’ original purpose was to train Communists activists on how to promote textile strikes, hold protest marches, picket lines and learn “socialist songs.”
The Textile Workers Union was completely controlled by the Communist Party. “Speak Now,” page 529 reads as:
“FBI surveillance of the Highlander Folk School and the Southern Conference Educational Fund, (SCEF) intensified. In 1952 Myles Horton would invest their energy and resources in the historic Southern struggle over desegregation of the public schools.”
“Speak Now,” says that Parks attended summer training at the Highlander Folk school in 1955, 1956 and 1957. She is pictured with Martin Luther King sitting on the front row in a Highlander training class on September 2, 1957. Thus, the liberals’ story that she was just a “poor tired black seamstress” when she sat
in the front of the bus is a total lie!
On December 1, the black Troy State College in Montgomery opened a $10
million Rosa Parks Library and monument. Attending the dedication included the state’s first Jewish governor, Dan Siegelman, who praised Parks, Coretta Scott King said that this incident launched her husband’s civil rights career and
added:
“By the sheer force of her will, she set in motion a revolution that continues to this day.” (Note: She could have and should have also thanked the Communist Party school which trained Parks)
Parks is called, “The mother of the civil rights movement.” Both NAACP head Kweisis Mfume, (who has five children by five different women; and never married to any of them) and Jesse Jackson (who is also the father of an illegitimate child) attended. Earlier, Clinton presented Miss Parks with the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor.
An old city bus, like the one Parks road on, is on display in the museum. Children are now brought on the bus and a harsh recorded voice tells all blacks to move to the back. This is deliberately designed to instill feelings of guilt and self-hate in White Children. (The Truth at Last, P.O. Box 1211, Marietta, Georgia, p. 4)
http://www.martinlutherking.org/articles/rosaparks.html
The f**k is that racist bullshit?
Jack, that site states that its purpose is to “expose the so-called civil rights movement as un-American and subversive.” On the main page it says that its forum is “hosted by Stormfront,” a self-described White Nationalist group.
Why in God’s name would you post that crap here?
Again the supreme narcissist makes it about him and, again the supreme suck-ups don’t get it. *Yawn*
Someone correct me if I am wrong. Is it not pretty well accepted and known that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Communist? He didn’t start out that way, but he became one. As for Rosa Parks, she was likely a Communist too.
Nevertheless, the civil rights that Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks fought for rise above any sad and ill thought out affiliations with the Communist party.
Bottom line — Neither Communists nor their current mutation into Democrats have the long and significant history of fighting for civil rights in legislation and in war that Republicans have. In fact, just the opposite is true. Communists and Democrats have a long and bloody history of violent and bloody race (and class) oppression and murder that takes one’s breath away.
Chris I didn’t connect the source material and I would not knowingly publish any racist content, you know that. For that I must take responsibility, if that was indeed the source as you have said, (I’ll be checking as time permits) but I noticed the content was correct and that’s what grabbed my attention.
The book, “Speak Now,” a left-wing history of the civil rights movement, states that in August of 1955, (four months before the bus incident) Parks attended the Highlander Folk School in Mount Eagle, Tennessee. The “school” was started in 1932 by Myles Horton and James Dombrowski, both members of the Communist Party.
. . .the schools’ original purpose was to train Communists activists on how to promote textile strikes, hold protest marches, picket lines and learn “socialist songs.”
The Textile Workers Union was completely controlled by the Communist Party. “Speak Now,” page 529 reads as:
“FBI surveillance of the Highlander Folk School and the Southern Conference Educational Fund, (SCEF) intensified. In 1952 Myles Horton would invest their energy and resources in the historic Southern struggle over desegregation of the public schools.”
Do you deny any of this is true?
That is the higher issue here, we want the unvarnished truth, not some soft, touching version of history like the left is always complaining about…you know, like pointing out how Jefferson had slaves, etc. If Parks was affiliated with some communist groups then so be it, it’s history.
From wikipedia…”Although never a member of the Communist Party she and her husband did attend meetings and the Scottsboro case was a case that had been brought to prominence by the Communist Party.[9]”
Jack, most of the info in your second comment appears to be true. As far as I can find, Parks was never an official member of the Communist Party, but she did have affiliations. One of her first involvements in politics was with the Scottsboro rape trial, in which nine young black men were falsely accused of raping two white women. This case was taken up by the International Labor Defense, which was a Communist organization. There was actually a lot of overlap between Communists and the civil rights movement in those days.
I agree with you that we deserve to know the whole truth. Rosa Parks is often portrayed as a lone individual with no activist background, who spontaneously decided not to move simply because her feet were tired, and that’s just not true. She had been involved with the civil rights struggle for years, and was a committed activist. Another black woman had done something similar a while before, but she was not chosen as a symbol of civil rights because she was a single mother. Parks was better for P.R.
None of this diminishes her heroism, in my opinion. But it’s interesting to think about why this history has been suppressed. Is the emphasis on “rugged individualism” over collective action in our history textbooks to blame? Or is it just that they don’t want anything or anyone good associated with Communism? Helen Keller was a vocal Communist for most of her life, but very few people know that today.
I am sure you did not know you were linking to a white nationalist site, but the last two paragraphs you quoted were huge red flags to me:
“Both NAACP head Kweisis Mfume, (who has five children by five different women; and never married to any of them) and Jesse Jackson (who is also the father of an illegitimate child) attended.”
What on earth are the parantheticals doing in this sentence, other than race-baiting? These men’s family situations have nothing to do with the subject at hand; they are only mentioned here to denigrate and discredit the two men referenced in deeply stereotpyical terms. The next paragraph is even worse:
“An old city bus, like the one Parks road on, is on display in the museum. Children are now brought on the bus and a harsh recorded voice tells all blacks to move to the back. This is deliberately designed to instill feelings of guilt and self-hate in White Children.”
That’s nuts, right? The exercise is clearly designed to accurately reflect history and make all children think about inequality. Why does the author immediately focus on the feelings of white children here, and not the feelings of black children, who would more likely be deeply affected by such instructions? Why does he impute a sinister motive on an exercise that accurately reflects history? This immediately struck me as the words of someone who thinks whites are superior to blacks, and after clicking the link and looking around, my suspicions were confirmed.
This isn’t the first time you have inadvertantly linked to a white nationalist site, Jack, and my only recommendation is to be wary of racially coded language such as the above.
‘Red’ Rosa Parks: Fabricating An American Icon By Henry Makow PhD, 11-5-5
http://rense.com/general68/rosa.htm Article debated.
Alton Raines
11-6-5
I tell ya, I don’t give a kooters damn if Rosa was a “communist” plant or part of some “communist” plot — if I was black and living in the South in the 50s I’d probably have been very attracted to the communist party and movement, which promised equality, while I lived in a world where being treated like walking horse manure was a minute-by-minute reality in the ‘white Christian capitalist’ Amerika.
Rosa never followed up her moment with a lot of BS, either. It was what it was. It changed what needed to be changed, and God bless’er for it. They tyranny of the white establishment was then a ferocious, fanged dog that tore plenty of flesh, wounded many souls and shattered uncountable spirits. If it takes communists and communism to force us to live up to our own credos of liberty and justice when we hypocritically trample human beings under the boot of mindless domination, then so be it. Hail, communism! Hail, Rosa Parks! This screwed up country can use a little more “outside comm’nist ad’juh’taters” busting things up here and there. If our democracy is worth a tinkers damn, it will survive it, embrace its painful changes and celebrate it in true humility and reverence for enlightenment, no matter what the devious motives behind it may have been or who was involved. If the end result is liberty, it cannot be a bad thing.
I’m also sick of the term communist being tossed around like the linguistic equivalent of Satanism. It’s flat-headed non-thinking ignorance and has no basis in reality.
Marx had a lot to offer civilization; some good things, some bad things. Few have ever strictly implemented his ideals. Ultimately, when one examines the United States, we have done more to advance the very dialectics of Marx perhaps more than any other nation on earth — we ARE the great experiment. It’s not over and there’s plenty of strange concoctions we can come up with until we get it right. Right being equal justice under law for all citizens, something we have never achieved.
Chris, please understand I believe what Parks did was right and good. I celebrate that part, just as I celebrate what MLK did that was good, but I also know there was some bad. I took note that he was a notorious womanizer and adulterer at the same time he held himself out to be a man of God. I also note that he made a lot of money and received a lot of fame for doing what was right. No law against that, but it does remind of some televangelists making millions upon millions. That part seems inconsistent with the ethos of the Christian ministry.
If Parks was a communist or simply fooled by the silver tongues on the early communists in America you cannot deny the words she used to express herself include America principles: “…freedom and equality and justice and prosperity for all people.”
At her core it is clear that she was a woman unafraid to stand on her own two feet to earn a living. At her core it is clear she wanted to be judged by the content of her character and not the color of her skin. At her core it is clear she valued having the freedom to PURSUE happiness unencumbered by oppressive big government control.
America is a free country…communist can play here. Putting them in positions of power to fundamentally transform the nation by dismissing the principles held within the Constitution is another matter altogether. I can’t believe that a woman possessing the clear headed thinking and disciplined personal life she seems to have had would abide the likes of this administration or his plans for our government.
Jack, I mostly agree with the comments attributed to Alton Raines, and I think MLK’s words about Marx are as appropriate as ever:
“Yet, in spite of the fact that my response to communism was and is negative, and I considered it basically evil, there were points at which I found it challenging. The late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, referred to communism as a Christian heresy. By this he meant that communism had laid hold of certain truths which are essential parts of the Christian view of things, but that it had bound up with them concepts and practices which no Christian could ever accept or profess. Communism challenged the late Archbishop and it should challenge every Christian — as it challenged me — to a growing concern about social justice. With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew as a protest against the hardships of the underprivileged. Communism in theory emphasized a classless society, and a concern for social justice, though the world knows from sad experience that in practice it created new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. The Christian ought always to be challenged by any protest against unfair treatment of the poor, for Christianity is itself such a protest, nowhere expressed more eloquently than in Jesus’ words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
[…]
But in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Marx had raised some basic questions. I was deeply concerned from my early teen days about the gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, and my reading of Marx made me ever more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an economic system: capitalism is always in danger of inspiring men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity — thus capitalism can lead to a practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism taught by communism.
In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers — from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial “yes” and a partial “no.” In so far as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but in so far as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite “yes.”
My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism. Each represents a partial truth. Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise, and Marxism failed to see the truth in individual enterprise. Nineteenth century capitalism failed to see that life is social and Marxism failed and still fails to see that life is individual and personal. The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/08/25/report-martin-luther-king-would-have-been-on-gl/169795
Re Chris — “Both NAACP head Kweisis Mfume, (who has five children by five different women; and never married to any of them) and Jesse Jackson (who is also the father of an illegitimate child) attended.”
What on earth are the parantheticals doing in this sentence, other than race-baiting?
Race baiting???????????????????????????????????
Facts pure and simple. You have a problem with that?
Tina: Well said, that’s pretty much the way I feel too. I applaud her civil rights activism and I respectfully oppose her affiliations with communism.
Same can be said for MLK. He said the right things and at the right time and influenced a lot of people. He also did some low ethical things while wearing the mantle of a good Christian minister.
When Rev. Ralph Abernathy mentioned this part of MLK’s life, a number of black militants wanted to lynch the man! We have to be prepared to always let the truth be part of history, even if it chips away a little at the image of our heroes.
Re Chris: “My reading of Marx also convinced me that truth is found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism.”
Please expound sir, what is “traditional capitalism”.
traditional capitalism…hmmm, I think that would be making a profit on something you sell, right?
I don’t know about Chris, but I love facts. -Jack
“The Kingdom of God is neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both.”
This is an interesting thought but in truth none of us knows what the Kingdom of God is like. It may be that enterprise, at least as we know it, is totally irrelevant.
If MLK said this it was an attempt to do what most socialist thinking persons dream of…creating a perfect world. A perfect world will never exist without divine intervention (Kingdom of God).
The Constitution acknowledges the basic (Christian) truth that all men are created equal and that all men have been given free will. Our Constitution and our capitalist system recognize the truth of each individual as the author of his own life or fate (free will).
The Marxist system totally dismisses this basic truth and attempts to arrange and organize people’s lives to achieve the impossible…sameness. Social justice and wealth redistribution are poor substitutes for the creative power and charity found in liberty (free will).
I find it interesting that communists seek out the oppressed only to ultimately subjugate them under a system of central planning. Communism is controlling and limiting…rewarding sloth and punishing achievement. It attempts to put people in a one size fits all box.
Pie, I am not sure I can define what MLK meant when he said “traditional capitalism.” He may have meant unregulated, laizess-faire capitalism, in which there were no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, no weekends, poor factory conditions, and legalized workplace discrimination. He fought for an Economic Bill of Rights and a higher minimum wage (even though the minimum wage back then was effectively higher than it is today). That’s quite to the left of what most Democrats feel bold enough to propose today. By your definition that might qualify him as a Communist, but he is not commonly accepted as one, and I think his words above make the distinction between his beliefs and Communism clear.
The problem with the part I highlighted from the Rosa Parks hit peice is that those facts have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article. The two men referenced don’t even have anything to do with the topic; why even point out their attendance at the Rosa Parks Library, let alone their family situations? It would be like saying, “Newt Gingrich (who is currently married to the woman he was having an affair with when his wife at the time was being treated for cancer) attended a banquet to honor local business leader Dean Simmons.” If the article focuses on business leader Dean Simmons, there is no point in including that fact about Newt Gingrich’s personal life. (Though it would be relevant in a discussion about Gingrich’s favored policies regarding marriage.)
In this case, it’s worse than that, because that website does nothing but denigrate famous black politicians and civil rights leaders. That seems to be its entire purpose for existing. So no, I am not opposed to facts, but I am opposed to using them out of context for the purpose of perpetuating racism. I know Jack did not know what kind of site this was, I’m just saying that this kind of thing should be a clue next time. It definitely set off my alarm bells.
Tina: “This is an interesting thought but in truth none of us knows what the Kingdom of God is like. It may be that enterprise, at least as we know it, is totally irrelevant.”
This I totally agree with. King often blended his religious beliefs and his politics in ways I am not entirely comfortable with.
“If MLK said this it was an attempt to do what most socialist thinking persons dream of…creating a perfect world. A perfect world will never exist without divine intervention (Kingdom of God).”
I don’t agree that he was trying to create a “perfect” world. Only a “more perfect” one, to use the language of our nation’s founders.
“Our Constitution and our capitalist system recognize the truth of each individual as the author of his own life or fate (free will).
The Marxist system totally dismisses this basic truth and attempts to arrange and organize people’s lives to achieve the impossible…sameness. Social justice and wealth redistribution are poor substitutes for the creative power and charity found in liberty (free will).”
I think you’re making this too black and white. A synthesis between the two views acknowledges the power of free will and self-determination, but also acknowledges that there are times in a capitalist system when a few become too powerful and a practical aristocracy develops. The founders warned against this:
“I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” –Thomas Jefferson
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/jefferson-feared-an-aristocracy-of-corporations/article_1ad1454d-3da6-5030-aa58-5b3b30adcb8f.html#ixzz2EIEny2mH
When situations like this develop, the government–democratically elected by a free people–must step in. We’ve have a blended system for a long time, one that is neither Marxist nor laizess-faire capitalist. It has its problems, but I think it works much better than the pure form of either system.
“I find it interesting that communists seek out the oppressed only to ultimately subjugate them under a system of central planning. Communism is controlling and limiting…rewarding sloth and punishing achievement. It attempts to put people in a one size fits all box.”
I absolutely agree.
Re: “Pie, I am not sure I can define what MLK meant when he said “traditional capitalism.”
Interesting, that doesn’t stop you from using the nebulous and obscure term you can’t define. Nice mindless sound bite though. Interesting you keep repeating it.
Re: “By your definition that might qualify him as a Communist”
My definition????? I haven’t proposed any definition. I merely noted that I thought it well known he was a Communist. You know, like people who closely associate with the Communist party may be reasonably be identified as Communists.
Re: “The problem with the part I highlighted from the Rosa Parks hit peice is that those facts have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article.”
So? How is that race baiting or racist? If there is anything racist here, it is you falsely accusing others of racism and race baiting. Are the statements true or not? Since when was pointing out such facts racist?
Re: “I think you’re making this too black and white.”
Me? Jack? Post Scripts? How do you come to that conclusion? It is you who are trying to make a racist argument and paint others as racist.
I won’t bother to respond to the rest of your rambling, incoherent, and vomitous screeds in this thread. Suffice it to say anyone who relies on and cites Media Matters cannot be taken seriously.
Chris: “…there are times in a capitalist system when a few become too powerful and a practical aristocracy develops.”
The socialist in the White House has proved himself to be the closest administration yet to a “practical aristocracy”.
“When situations like this develop, the government–democratically elected by a free people–must step in.”
Step in and do what? Right now the government itself has become an overreaching “aristocracy” that bypasses the Congress (our elected representatives) and oppresses the people by interfering in their business affairs. (See story I just posted about GM)
The founders had lived under the thumb of the King of England. They wanted freedom. They would hate and be appalled at the state of our government today.
“Interesting, that doesn’t stop you from using the nebulous and obscure term you can’t define. Nice mindless sound bite though. Interesting you keep repeating it.”
What are you talking about? I didn’t use that term myself, it was part of the quote from MLK. As far as I can remember I have never used the term “traditional capitalism” other than that.
“So? How is that race baiting or racist? If there is anything racist here, it is you falsely accusing others of racism and race baiting.”
Pie, have you looked at the site in question? It is run by a self-described white supremacist organization called Stormfront. I have not “falsely” accused anyone of racism. I pointed out that the site is racist. I find it really weird that you feel the need to defend them from my criticism.
“Me? Jack? Post Scripts? How do you come to that conclusion? It is you who are trying to make a racist argument and paint others as racist.”
I was very clearly talking to Tina when I said that, and we had moved on to a different issue. It would help if you read my comments before responding to them. And again, I am not trying to pain anyone as racist. The site Jack linked to is openly, proudly racist against blacks.
You then move on to ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with what I wrote…why do I even bother trying to be civil with you, Pie? It’s clear I will never get the same in return.