Martin Luther King, Jr., Man or Myth?

Today many Americans celebrate the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. I’m not one of them. King was a socialist, and didn’t really believe in the ideas of equality that he voiced in the famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963. You don’t have to take my word for it, however. King made the case for socialism and hyper-affirmative action without my help. To accurately dispel his “I Have a Dream” rhetoric, I will provide several examples of his philosophy.

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.

Arguably the most famous line of King’s speech, this line has fueled both liberals and conservatives alike to honor King for what would appear to be a belief of equal rights, without the need for policies like affirmative action. However in his book, Where Do We Go From Here, published in 1968, he makes the case for affirmative action and reparations.

A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.

It wasn’t enough for King to safeguard equal rights for all. He advocates special treatment in order to boost black Americans to a level he believed would be equal with that of whites. Was it not enough that they boost themselves freely using the “content of their character”? He also believed that the redistribution of wealth could aide black Americans.

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

This argument doesn’t hold much water for me. The people that would receive the money wouldn’t be those that were disenfranchised, and the people being forced to give up their money wouldn’t have been the perpetrators.

King had no love for our founding fathers. “Our nation was born in genocide,” he remarked, and regarded the Declaration of Independence and Constitution as irrelevant to black Americans, because some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. He may not have been aware that many (perhaps even the majority) of the Founding Fathers spoke out against slavery. John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, George Washington, George Wythe, William Livingston, and John Randolph were all former slave owners, but released them when we had gained our independence from Great Britain. Others, such as Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, established anti-slavery societies in their home states. John Adams once boasted that he had never owned a slave. Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, referred to slavery as a “great evil.” Another signer, Richard Henry Lee, President of the Continental Congress, expressed similar views. The Founding Fathers as a whole, or even as a majority, did not endorse slavery. Why would Dr. King then make the case that the Declaration and Constitution couldn’t apply to black Americans?

Those of us that fear globalism as a means of tyranny can find no comfort in Dr. King’s words:

Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective.

King also encouraged his followers to “question the capitalistic economy” and “restructure America.” He proposed this question as well, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?” I suppose that if someone wanted to drink salt water, or bacteria-ridden water, he could walk out and gather some. However, if he wanted clean drinking water, someone has to process it and pump it to homes, and that takes money in the form of equipment costs and wages, as well as electricity.

King didn’t believe in natural price fluctuations in the free market. He believed that it was “violence” and it caused blacks to pay “higher consumer prices” than people of other races. "Do you know," he asked, "that a can of beans almost always costs a few cents more in grocery chain stores located in the Negro ghetto than in a store of that same chain located in the upper-middle-class suburbs?" There were probably more robberies in such stores in the ghetto than in the suburbs. This lowers the availability of competition—fewer competitors will want to enter this risky market. Therefore, the few stores in the ghetto that remain can charge whatever they want, with very little concern toward their potential competitors.

King believed that whether or not a family was working, there ought to be a minimum income guaranteed by the government. This would involve a massive, forceful redistribution of wealth by the government. King endorsed what he called “a democratic socialism” and described himself to friends as “an economic Marxist”.

Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech represents ideas that people can easily embrace, whether they belong to the conservative, liberal, or libertarian areas of the political spectrum. I must sadly retort, though, that Dr. King didn’t actually embrace these ideals, but instead embraced the enemies of liberty--statism and socialism. He didn’t believe in free markets and economic freedom. Today, people will be celebrating an undeserved image of Dr. King, largely because they haven’t heard or truly understood what he really believed.

I thank Marcus Epstein for his “Myths of Martin Luther King”, Lew Rockwell for his “The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.”, and Thomas Woods for his 33 Questions about American History You Weren’t Supposed to Ask.

Barack Obama: "Make Sure Your Child Can Speak Spanish"

While this news (from Digger's Realm) does not surprise me, it doesn't fail to enrage and annoy. The Democratic front-runner spoke to an audience in Powder Springs, Georgia, and provided the following when asked about English as the official language of the United States (video here).

"Make sure your child can speak Spanish."

Senator Obama must think that this is a grand idea, so that our children can begin a tradition of going out of their way to accommodate those who refuse to assimilate into our way of life and learn to be proficient with our language. If someone comes to this country lawfully and chooses to speak another language in their home, they are free to do so, with regard to individual liberty in this country. However, they have no claim to force accommodations for their own shortcomings--that would infringe on the liberty of all other citizens.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, a school superintendent has pitched a proposal to his school board for a Spanish only school in his district. Superintendent Peter Gorman believes that such a measure would "help preserve Hispanic culture." A spokeswoman for the school district added, "[The parents] are very fluent, well-educated in English, legal citizens. They're sending their kids there because they want them to have exposure to their native language."

The author of Digger's Realm corrected it perfectly when he said that if these children were born in this country, then naturally, their "native language" would be English.

It appears that if this proposal is successful, the good people of North Carolina will be forced to fund this venture through their taxes. I don't like it. If you don't like it either, give Superintendent Gorman's office a call and give them hell! Hopefully, North Carolinians will do the same.

Superintendent, Peter C. Gorman - (980) 343-6270
Chief Communications Officer, Nora K. Carr - (980) 343-6274

This sort of erratic behavior is going on all over the country. If you are a teacher, and try to get a job teaching in Texas, it seems that these days they will deny you if you are not bilingual. All across the country, the inability of anchor babies and illegal alien children to speak English proficiently is forcing school districts to shell out tax dollars so that these students might be tutored in Spanish. Already, some school districts are trying to force students to learn Spanish.

In California, high school students (notably black students) are being denied jobs in fast food because they don't speak Spanish. Apparently the concern is that they wouldn't be able to communicate properly with the existing workforce and with the customers. Anyone else smell an illegal alien in that kitchen?

Senator Obama has shown his allegiance to a faction that believes that you and I, our children, and our grandchildren should carry the burden of language constraints of a class of people with an entitlement issue (in the sense that they feel they are entitled to everything). When immigrants come here legally from Asia, Europe, and Africa, and become a part of our country, do they expect their own language to be plastered everywhere for their convenience? No! They have to work hard and learn the language just like everyone else did (that is, if they don't know it already). Do you think that the English-speaking, native-born American citizens in the 1800's rushed out to learn Irish, German, Chinese, and Yiddish, to accomodate those recent additions to the melting pot? No! The immigrant parents of that day and age knew the importance of their child's learning English, and often forced them to speak it in the home.

Another aspect of Senator Obama's suggestion that we all rush out to learn Spanish and indoctrinate our children, is that it could quite possibly be a preparation for our unlawful enrollment in a North American Union. What better way to make us play nice with our new fellow NAU'ers in Central America than to indoctrinate us with their native language? These advocates for globalization have always sought to equalize North America. They knew that they couldn't bring Central America up to where America was, so they settled for bringing America down to their level, so we could be one big happy family--at the cost of our sovereignty and Constitution.

So no, Senator Obama, I won't be forcing my children to learn Spanish. As with any language, they'll be able to learn it out of a genuine interest and a desire to enrich their education, not because a grossly unqualified presidential candidate (and New World Order proponent) told them to.

Ebenezer Scrooge vs. the Socialist Regime

The other day, I found a blog written by someone who appeared to be on the other side of many issues. I figured I would see what the other side was talking about, to strengthen my own stances, and possibly even have some friendly political discourse. One of the blog entries I found nagged me so badly, that it has been stuck in my brain for days! Naturally, I had to write about it.

The entry details a conversation between a mother and son. The son is learning about other countries during the course of his homeschooling. Upon learning about Russia's history, he begins to ask his mother a series of questions. The conversation goes as follows (from Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez - "Burma, Bolsheviks, and Alexander"):

"Mom," he said. "Why are there some people who let all the other people go hungry?"

"I don't know," said I.

"Are they evil?"

"I don't know. I think they're greedy."

Alex's eyes welled with tears. "Sad," he said.

"Yes."

"But sometimes, the poor people decide not to let he greedy people keep them poor anymore," he offered. "That's not sad."

"True," said I.

"Is George Bush greedy?" he asked.

"Yes," I said.

"Is he evil too?"

"Some people might say so, yes."

"Why don't we have Bolsheviks here?" he asked.

I don't know what bugged me the most about it. When I read it, it jumped out at me that the boy was advocating the forced transfer of wealth. The mother was perfectly alright with this. She bragged, as would any parent, about how bright her child was. I commend her decision to home-school her child, but are the building blocks of socialism a good foundation for a child's view of how the world works?

The exchange seemed to suggest to me that mother and child believe that all members of a society are financially responsible for the well-being of all members of that society. A mark of guilt is placed on those who "let all the other people go hungry." Why is one segment of the society responsible for what happens to the other segment? I don't believe that people should go hungry; that wouldn't be to anyone's benefit. My issue is the notion that you can force someone to do what you think is for the "greater good."

Charity and good-will must spring from the hearts of individuals, not from the force of an overbearing government. Coercive force cannot change the hearts of people. You can help feed the poor if you wish, but you shouldn't have to do so with a gun to the back of your head, so to speak. Socialism demands an expansion of that sort of welfare state, in which some lofty few decide what they think is "right," and use the force of their state to compel others to serve those ends. It is absolutely immoral to take the fruits of one man's labor away so that they may be given to another.

I know that different people have different skills, and some people spend more time, money, and effort developing them. That's why a brain surgeon with years of schooling ought to earn more pay than a stock boy with a week of on-the-job training. Socialism seeks to level out and average the things that naturally divide a society. The socialist believes that the brain surgeon should use his earnings to help subsidize the livelihood of the stock boy. When you seek to equalize such a society by force, you take away the incentive for achievement and excellence. If the stock boy isn't forced to fund yet another person's wellbeing, does that mean he possesses more freedom than the brain surgeon? Why should the brain surgeon have made the effort to become a master of his craft if he must split the difference with someone who hasn't worked as hard? A socialist society doesn't care about what an individual does to better himself--it only cares about what that individual can provide for the well-being of all members of the society. A free society knows that people are gifted or trained in different ways and seeks to reward them.

In short, I'm not as wealthy as I'd like to be, but I can't blame the wealthy man up the road, nor can I make him share. I don't have the moral authority to make him use his own money to feed anyone that is starving. He can be asked to contribute, but he shouldn't be coerced by the state, through his taxes, or any other means. Government can't threaten Ebenezer Scrooge into being a charitable person--it takes a change of heart.

Juan McCain and the Left-Right Paradigm

I hope people realize that both Obama and McCain are unacceptable. McCain is merely a liberal in conservative clothing who will change his position depending on who he's speaking to at the time. For example, when he's in a hardcore GOP meeting, he'll say he wants tough border security, but when he's speaking to a Hispanic special interest group, he wants to show illegal aliens "compassion" and a "path to citizenship."

In 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle that overturning Roe vs. Wade would lead to illegal abortions, and that he opposed overturning it. Recently, however, he stated that he would support South Dakota in banning abortions.

In 2005 he opposed a ban on gay marriage; in 2006 he supported it.

In 2000, he called Christian leaders including Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and compared them to Louis Farrakhan.

Although he might appear to oppose liberal gun control, he collaborated with Joe Lieberman in an attempt to gain government regulatory control over all sales at gun shows.

He was behind the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act in 2001, which limited political speech, and would restrict what candidates could say, as well as limit the speech of radio personalities and internet bloggers--certainly a blow to conservative activism.

Barry Goldwater Sr., the outspoken conservative, is said to be John McCain's mentor. Yet John McCain has attacked the very same principles in the candidate closest to Goldwater's views--Ron Paul. Barry Goldwater advocated a policy of noninterventionism abroad, in order to keep us out of entangling alliances and conflicts in which we have no real national interest. As a neoconservative, McCain believes that we should be in the nation-building business, a practice that is helping financially ruin the United States.

Let's see, Ron Paul predicted a "quagmire" in Iraq, while John McCain predicted that we would be in and out in three weeks. Who was right and who was wrong here? Then, instead of acknowledging that Dr. Paul was correct, McCain chose to attack him by saying, "that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." First of all, noninterventionism is not isolationism, and was the preferred policy of the Founding Fathers. In actuality, it was our and European nations' involvement in post-World War I Germany that generated the fervor and hatred that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. Without that, he probably would've never made it past Postmaster.

So we have to choose between Hardcore Liberal and Liberal Lite? I refuse. The GOP has not provided me and others like me with a viable candidate for the Presidency. I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, or writing in Dr. Paul's name. And before I'm told that my vote is wasted... I refuse to acknowledge the credibility of either Obama or McCain with a vote. Any vote for a supporter of an illegal alien amnesty is a slap in the face to every American family that has lost loved ones because our "leaders" will not do their duty and secure our border.

Godspeed Oklahoma!

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me
State House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, Oklahoma's House of Representatives told Washington, D.C., to back off.

Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

View the Article

Oklahoma has chosen to remind the federal government of exactly who granted them their powers. The Founding Fathers knew that too much government was a curse, and that only The People could keep that unruly beast in check. Every state should take the time for such a measure. It would carry with it a warning that has echoed from the hearts and minds of constitutionalists: “Your days are numbered.”

The beast has been usurping power for far too long, ripping it away from law-abiding citizens and abusing the sacred trust by which the states abdicated powers to the federal government. Our states must take action to keep chained the abusive potential of a gorged federal government. Oklahoma made their stand because the federal government sought to undermine their power to pass legislation to hinder the negative impacts that illegal immigration has brought to their state.

Oklahoma was not represented at the Constitutional Convention, but it is still entitled to the same powers that the original states sought to preserve for themselves. The Constitution clearly stated that all powers that it did not expressly transfer from the states to the federal government, still resided with the states or The People themselves. After reviewing what the actual powers transferred included, one might begin to realize how far the federal government has strayed from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”
--James Madison, Federalist No. 39, 1788

“But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.”
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, 1788

The issue of states’ rights has not been a popular subject of political debate in nearly a century and a half. In fact, the federal government has assumed more power since the beginning of the twentieth century than it ever had before. Unlike the era of the Civil War, these times are wrought with a more complex and dire issue than even slavery or unfair tariffs. We are now faced with the philosophic debate of what a state can actually determine for itself, with a federal government so out of control. This debate deserved to be revisited.

Our states not only have a right to determine their own way of life—they have an inescapable responsibility to keep the federal government from wielding too much power. Initiatives must be started in every state to remind the federal government of who holds what powers. There must be a concerted effort in every state to carefully choose who is sent to Washington, making sure that those individuals love and respect the Constitution. They must also hold the interests of their states in high regard, second only to the guidance of the Constitution. These United States can no longer prop up weak-willed politicians that will pander to special interest groups and turn a receptive ear toward lobbyists. There must be no politicians, but only statesmen of integrity walking through the halls of Washington.

Anyone can make a difference in this effort to reassert the Constitution and render natural powers back to the states. Already, a grand movement is under way to restore the republic that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to establish. It is called the Campaign for Liberty. From the local level to the federal, it aims to bring integrity and constitutional thinking back to public office. Please join the ranks if you are driven by a love for the Constitution and want to contribute in a worthwhile effort to restore order and prosperity to our nation.