Why is Martin Luther King’s Dream still a Dream?

When an individual or group of people have a goal they dream of reaching, once the hoped for is attained the focus shifts to the actual accomplishment while the rest fades to the background.

When the colonists were under British rule they dreamed of freedom and sovereignty. Before and during the Revolutionary War, they were entirely focused on overthrowing the British and gaining independence. Once the colonists emerged victorious and their dream a reality, their focus shifted. At a day to day basis the talk no longer revolved around their old hopes but at the new-found freedom and current challenges. Several decades and now centuries down the road haven’t erased the hopes, struggles, and victory; they will never be forgotten. Rather it is stored backstage to be brought out front on occasion such as on Independence Day.

It is now over close to 50 years after Martin Luther King delivered his renowned “I have a Dream” speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Why is his dream still stressed upon on a constant basis especially amongst Democrats and African American leaders and not its accomplishments? Why hasn’t it yet been relegated to backstage together with other historical speeches? Why has his dream not yet been actualized? Why do African Americans suffer from greater poverty, higher unemployment, and weaker education?

The left has put to power several shameful individuals who brainwash their base in the greatness of the Democrat Party and their generosity through government programs while demonizing the conservative movement as greedy uncaring racists. Breitbart.tv has recently put out two short videos; the first video features Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show blaming racist segregationist Tea Partiers for wanting to return to the pre-1960’s while the second video has highlights of speeches of many members of the Congressional Black Caucus at jobs town hall meetings in five cities at which they spewed hatred towards the tea party and unabashedly used the race card to incite the attendees against conservatives. The CBC leaders used false violent rhetoric from the right such as tea party members wanting blacks hanging from trees, in order to condone their promotion of violence against the right.

The Democrat Party, the CBC, and Al Sharpton have crowned themselves as the leaders of the African American communities and as the only ones who care and fight for their needs. What accomplishments can they point to besides for digging many African Americans even deeper into the holes of entitlement and helplessness? Why not empower them to the point where they’ll be equal to all and that there shouldn’t be a need for a CBC? Aha – perhaps because they want to avoid precisely that since that would cause them to lose a considerable amount of their power, money, and standing they currently have at the expense of the black communities!

Al Sharpton and the CBC’s silence after Pelosi and the left went on a “civil rights” march proclaiming the passing of Obamacare as equal to the emancipation of slavery reveals their disconnect of the people they claim to represent. Where was the outrage? Do they find the tortures of slavery and the denial of basic rights every human should be entitled to as comparable to the “right” of free health care to the poor at the expense of those better off? What does this hint about Pelosi and the Democrats who have made this illogical comparison yet claim to be the party for the blacks? Come to think of it, what has Obama, the first black president, done for the African American community besides for creating policies which increased unemployment and dependency on government? Where are the marches of protest led by Al Sharpton against the elimination of school choice in D.C. by Obama despite it having been proven to raise the educational level of local African American children?

This obvious hypocrisy can easily be understood when looking back at one incident with the opposite responses of two individuals.

Twenty years ago in Crown Heights, NY a Jewish driver struck a car, swerved onto the sidewalk and hit an African American child, Gavin Cato. The neighborhood at the time had a considerable population of both Jews and blacks and many hotheaded African American teenagers took to the Jewish neighborhoods, vandalizing Jewish property and attacking Jews. While many responded civilly, others including many who were bussed in rioted for three full days beating and plundering left and right.

The father of the dead child, Carmel Cato although deeply pained, declared he had no bad feelings against the driver in particular and Jews in general. Despite his depth of character, he was never named by the media or Democrat party who claim to represent the black population as a civil rights leader who builds relationships between communities. Nor was he crowned as a spokesperson of the black community, or offered to host a TV show.

Al Sharpton joined the scene and further incited the rioters with his focus on race and “peace” marches blasting the Jewish people using anti-Semitic slurs and chanting “no justice, no peace.” Why is it that Al Sharpton, who will use every opportunity he could think of to remind African Americans of their skin color and not of their character, is considered by the left and the media as the spokesperson for the African American community and a civil rights leader who builds relationships between communities? What has made him worthy to recently receive a show to host on MSNBC?

I’m an employee in a retail shop and meet many great people including hardworking African Americans whom I greatly respect for their honorable character and intelligence. Why aren’t any of them or their likes representing their communities in congress? Why is it that the only two African American’s currently serving in congress which were voted into office by a mostly white district are conservative Republicans, and the voters conservatives?

Allen West and Tim Scott, the two Republican African Americans and many other conservative African Americans face heat from the so-called “true” African-American leaders for rejecting their people. How wrong! They should be the ultimate example to their fellow African Americans as to where hard work can take you no matter your skin color! Jesse Jackson and the other CBC members mainly represent districts heavily populated by African Americans who voted for them based on their skin color. Allen West and Tim Scott were elected because of their achievements without a second glance at their skin color. Democrats are known to divide the nation into blocs based on their ethnicity, economic position, etc. in order to unite them against each other and receive their votes. Republicans look at each individual for who they are, what they stand for, what they’ve accomplished, and plan to accomplish in the future.

Martin Luther King had a dream; that people should be valued according to character and not color. The conservative movement has actualized the dream, thus not finding it necessary to constantly mention the dream, the same way they don’t constantly stress on other former dreams such as having been British colonists yearning for freedom. On the other hand, Democrats continually harp on the dream, hoping it should remain forever a dream.

Hopefully after the shameful actions of the Obama administration, the CBC, and other African American leaders are exposed for what they truly are, the African American communities will recognize the truths, abandon their victim status, reach greater heights and watch Martin Luther King’s dream finally being actualized.


This article has been cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin.

Keith Olbermann’s nostalgia for the 60’s

A week after the historic debt ceiling compromise has passed, which mostly involved the RINO’s caving to the demands of the Democrats, Keith Olbermann had an emotion-laden message to the public.

Following in the footsteps of Rahm Emanuel who advised the Obama team to never let a serious crisis go to waste, Olbermann used the Democrat caused crisis of debt default as a tool to encourage further crisis.

He demanded from his listeners to return to the 1960’s with protests and boycotts explaining that the politicians and the media have acted in their own interests (read; aren’t liberal enough) and allowed “the economic stupidity of a mandated Balanced Budget Amendment” which the Republican’s demanded, as part of the debt deal. It seems like Olbermann is not happy enough that the BBA, although far from a done deal and still has to be voted on, is a possibility in the making.

Olbermann blasted the Republicans reasoning that “a constitutional amendment denying us to run a deficit is madness.”

He questioned the soundness of a spending cap for the government in a burst of strict constitutionalism. What a foolish, destructive, and outright dangerous Amendment the Republicans are trying to force down the people, which literally ties the hands of the government, Keith cried. If a crisis hits unexpectedly, whether a natural disaster, terrorist attack, war, or other emergency it won’t allow the government to spend even a single dollar over its set budget!

Olbermann continued with the current economy as a “crisis” which “requires” additional government spending using Hoover’s supposed lack of spending as proof of its necessity.

Indeed, if the BBA passes how will the left fulfill their mantra of “never allowing a crisis to go to waste?”

Here’s a great idea, Keith!

If you’re so concerned for the future of this country, why haven’t you checked out what a very stupid idiot which you’ve been busy slamming non-stop the past several years has actually done?

That person actually cut unnecessary spending from her state budget which resulted in a twelve billion dollar surplus so that in case of a crisis, the state should have the funds to spend without putting itself into debt! In case you haven’t figured out whom I’m referring to, that woman is Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska whose ideas are sounder than yours and your hero Obama.

And if it should happen that America suffers from a real crisis and is short on funds, and by that I don’t mean another panic-induced purported crisis, don’t you think two thirds of congress would immediately agree on a vote to allow the U.S. to spend on credit?

Listening to your fiery rant against the right it finally clarified your hatred at Sarah Palin for bringing out to the open that Obama had been palling around with terrorists such as Bill Ayers. It’s because you think back nostalgically to the 60’s and actually miss the good old wild days of Ayers and others like him in action. Your call to your followers to “be mad” and “rise not violently but insistently” with “strikes, boycotts, protests, sit-ins, non-cooperations, and take-overs” against the dangerous Conservatives you incite them against would indeed end non-violently; with the help of the police department.

Thanks Keith, for the 60’s clarification and for providing such an entertaining segment after such a disappointing debt deal.

The White House Press Secretary lies about liberal-created loopholes

After Mitch McConnell’s refusal to support tax hikes within the raising of the debt ceiling, the White House Press Secretary Jay Carney sharply attacked him as supporting special loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.

Politifact.org is too busy analyzing Palin’s Facebook for any spelling errors to take the time to double check how, if at all, accurate Carney’s statement is. The rest of the media simply repeated Carney’s accusation every top of the hour without having bothered to stop and consider whether it might be false.

I gave them the benefit of doubt and waited a while, but after no one bothered fact checking it I felt it necessary to prove his statement deserving of the rating “pants on fire.”

It’s a fact that the larger the size of government, the greater leeway for corruption and actions of self-interest. The same stands true in every institution and even in the business world. The larger a business is the greater the possibility of corrupt or unethical activity within.

The difference between unethical and corrupt individuals in the business world and in the government is that business world has the government breathing down their neck via law enforcers while the government has no one on top of them. Yes, we have a system of checks and balances and government officials are officially subject to law enforcement just like the rest of the country, but the fact of the matter is that there is an open double standard with nobody stopping corrupt politicians. Just think of Charley Rangel.

Businessmen and politicians are also different in that executives may and are supposed to do whatever they can to promote themselves and their company. That includes seeking exemptions from government regulations as long as it’s done in a legal and straight manner.

Politicians though, are servants of the people and are supposed to do what’s best for the country and his state/district even if doing so goes against his or her personal gain or beliefs. When politicians insert exemptions aka loopholes which benefit their donors and provide them with a way out of additional regulation or taxes, that is unethical because it’s done for the politician’s and donor’s interest, and not for the people’s benefit. If something must be taxed or a tax must be raised, it should be applicable across the board. Similarly when a system needs federal intervention in the form of regulation, why should anyone be exempt? Perhaps the regulation is not that necessary to begin with?

When Obama rammed through his 2,500 page trillion dollar health care bill it included mandates to purchase health care. He then secretly gave out waivers to hundreds of companies and no, it didn’t go to your corner deli or local pharmacy; it went to labor union groups and large companies with connections to influential Democrats. Although Pelosi claims otherwise, not too many believe that it’s a fluke that nearly 20 percent of Obamacare waivers were issued to gourmet restaurants, hotels, and nightclubs within Pelosi’s district.

These waivers from the health care mandates are just one of many government provided loophole for a select few. If Obama and the Democrats truly care for all its citizens and enacted Obamacare to provide equal great insurance to all, why would they give a waiver to even a single company? Didn’t they say it won’t affect businesses negatively?

When the big government reaches out to control and regulate businesses, businesses that are already choking with over-regulation and high taxes, understandably seek a way out. Unions, Influential large businesses, and wealthy donors put pressure and demand from their representatives whom they’ve put into office to insert a loophole into the bill which will exclude them from additional regulation and taxes. Why else do majority of the billionaires in this country vote Democrat? Why else would millionaires and billionaires gather in San Francisco at a dinner with Obama and donate large sums to Obama and the Democrat party when Obama repeatedly promises to raise taxes on the rich?

The average American, on the other hand, doesn’t have much of a choice but to pay the increasingly higher taxes and follow the endless regulatory laws. They don’t have the money to throw at politicians nor the power to threaten their local representative with hundreds of job layoffs. And besides, the higher taxes have to be paid by someone and the departments overseeing regulation need to have on whom to enforce it.

As is known to all, it’s the Democrats that are constantly increasing the size of government and supporting additional taxes and regulations. Republicans, on the other hand, seek to limit the level of involvement the federal government has in the lives of its citizens and businesses. Conservatives support smaller government, thus supporting fewer loopholes for the rich. Why would anyone need loopholes if taxes are anyways low and you get to keep most of your hard-earned money? If only what’s absolutely necessary is regulated, such as for safety concerns, why would the language of the bill be written to allow exemptions for all sorts of scenarios and situations?

Thus, it’s the Democrat Party that favors and courts to the millionaires and billionaires while the Republican Party fights for the rights of all. Raising taxes ends up affecting mostly the middle class which is comprised of struggling small businesses and not the millionaires and billionaires.

The liberals are constantly seeking to increase taxes but then go ahead and provide exceptions and exemptions. They are the ones inserting and promoting the use of loopholes, while at the same time pushing for additional regulations on companies.

Jay Carney, you are dead right in that there are many loopholes for the millionaires and billionaires, but are dead wrong in who creates and supports these loopholes.