Mangling MLK’s Dream

130828-mlk-obamaPresident Obama hijacked a solemn national occasion yesterday, fomenting racial resentment and making crass appeals to envy on the 50th anniversary of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech.

In his mercifully brief 29-minute oration on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Obama attacked Republicans without naming them. Obama and other Democratic politicians routinely beat up Republicans rhetorically. They claim Republicans want to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting, and accuse them of being fiscal tightwads who refuse to spend enough on education, the courts, the correctional system, and whatever else is on the Left’s hit parade that day.

“To secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency,” Obama said.

“Whether by challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring that the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance.”

Of course Obama hasn’t lifted a finger to improve black educational outcomes or to strengthen the black family. Left-wing policies have made things worse, but Obama refuses to admit that. He prefers to use social misery to generate race hatred which can then be used to advance his political program.

Obama declared that “black unemployment has remained almost twice as high as white unemployment,” but somehow failed to mention that it is his policies that are largely responsible for those high unemployment rates.

The Divider-in-Chief made sure to imply that King’s views were the same as his own, while rattling off what, a half century later, still happens to be a laundry list for today’s Left and the labor movement:

“Dr. King explained that the goals of African-Americans were identical to working people of all races: ‘decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures — conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community.'”

Obama mocked those who believe the powers of the federal government should not be unlimited and declared that Americans have “the right to health care.” He stated:

“There were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth — that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity; that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.”

The president made sure to pull out his favorite class warfare rhetoric, mixing a smattering of truth with an ocean of leftist propaganda:

“For over a decade, working Americans of all races have seen their wages and incomes stagnate, even as corporate profits soar, even as the pay of a fortunate few explodes. Inequality has steadily risen over the decades. Upward mobility has become harder. In too many communities across this country, in cities and suburbs and rural hamlets, the shadow of poverty casts a pall over our youth, their lives a fortress of substandard schools and diminished prospects, inadequate health care and perennial violence.”

Although Obama has always been the candidate of the crony capitalists of Wall Street and the lobbyists of Washington’s K Street, he likes to pretend he’s fighting for the proverbial little guy to reinforce his populist image. Markets are fundamentally unfair in his view and those who believe in the power of markets to serve the needs of Americans are by definition corrupt, in his mind.

These “entrenched interests” who benefit from “an unjust status quo,” resist

“any government efforts to give working families a fair deal — marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools, that all these things violated sound economic principles.”

America can follow the path of “change” that Obama supports, which includes “good jobs and just wages,” or it

“can continue down our current path, in which the gears of this great democracy grind to a halt and our children accept a life of lower expectations; where politics is a zero-sum game where a few do very well while struggling families of every race fight over a shrinking economic pie.”

This isn’t the first time Obama has tried to appropriate a national observance in order to advance his political goals. In 2009, the Obama White House was behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of eco-leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

Obama, who rarely fails to inject race into a political fight, no matter how inappropriate, has long regarded America as a deeply flawed, profoundly racist country. He has attacked the Constitution as an outmoded, obsolete document written by white men. He has called opponents of affirmative action racists.

His latest speech was more of the same, but stated with a bit more eloquence than usual.

The organizers of the event yesterday snubbed America’s sole black senator. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) was not invited to speak.

On hand were ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who, on their respective journeys to the White House, both worked closely with segregationists who fought tooth and nail against King.

Carter was politically aligned with staunch segregationists George Wallace and Lester Maddox. Clinton’s political mentor was the late Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-Ark.), who voted against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Both former chief executives used the occasion to boost the leftist agenda by misrepresenting a recent Supreme Court ruling on election integrity.

“I believe we all know how Dr. King would have reacted to the new ID requirements to exclude certain voters, especially African-Americans,” Carter said. “I think we all know how Dr. King would have reacted to the Supreme Court striking down a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act just recently passed overwhelmingly by Congress.”

Clinton followed suit. “A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon,” he said to applause.

When given the chance, Obama’s predecessor in the Oval Office refused to cheapen the 40th anniversary of the King speech by using it to promote his political agenda.

On Aug. 28, 2003, President George W. Bush issued a brief statement acknowledging King’s “dream that people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” Bush said America has come a long way since 1963, “but there is still work to do to realize Dr. King’s dream.” On “this important anniversary,” he encouraged “all Americans to continue the march to equality and opportunity for all.”

On the 30th anniversary, President Bill Clinton used the occasion to push his political program but he was less in-your-face and obnoxious than Obama was yesterday.

On Aug. 28, 1993, Clinton said “jobs and freedom are inextricably linked,” and touted his big government agenda of “health care that’s always there,” along with expanded “opportunities for education, training, and national service.”

Obama, as always, is in a league of his own.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • DaCoachK

    Left wing kooks use EVERYTHING for political reasons. It could be a storm outside, and they will find a way to blame it on racist white Republicans who hate everyone who is not like them.

    • Dennis X

      And racist white republicans would blame that same storm on the President.

      • Charles Martel

        I love your use of the word racist. I proudly wear that banner and point you in the direction of to find more of us.

        You will find that word is useless on those who see and realize what is happening in real life not your make believe all equal world.

        • Dennis X

          To accept what you are is the first step.

          • bluffcreek1967

            Well, I suppose it depends on how you interpret the word ‘racist.’ If you’re a Leftist, it means any white person who defends traditional values, wants a smaller government, less taxes, and wants our borders secured. Leftists broaden the word’s meaning so they can clobber anyone who doesn’t happen to agree with their social-political views.

            On the other hand, if you’re a white person who wants to preserve white, western culture and values, if you think massive third-world immigration is a bad thing because of the social-cultural problems it brings, if you are tired at the high rates of black-on-white crime, and if you want to end Affirmative Action and the bloated welfare state, then to some people – including even some conservatives – you are a certifiable ‘racist.’ And in that sense, YES, I’M A RACIST!


          • ziggy zoggy

            Dennis Echh, the second step is to flush yourself.

  • wildjew

    This is a great piece over all.

    Matthew Vadum wrote: “On hand were ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who, on their respective journeys to the White House, both worked closely with segregationists who fought tooth and nail against King.”

    I’ve been reading biographies on great presidents the past several years. I’ve not gotten to Carter or Clinton yet. I believe Carter has deep-seated issues with Israel and truth be known, with Jews. Mr. Carter is a hypocrite (with respect to Israel’s possession of our God-given land) in my view because he wrote in his book “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid,” his family farm sits on land that his forebears forcibly took from the Creek Indians who, along with the Cherokee Indians were forcibly uprooted and removed (many died along the way) west of the Mississippi River. Has Carter spoke of returning this land to its former owners?

    That having been said, in the interest of accuracy, I think we need to be careful. According to Wikipedia:

    “Carter was never a segregationist, and refused to join the White Citizens’ Council. This caused a boycott of his peanut warehouse. His family was one of two among their congregation to vote to admit blacks to the Plains Baptist Church….Carter (as newly elected governor) declared in his inaugural speech that the time of racial segregation was over, and that racial discrimination had no place in the future of the state; he was the first statewide officeholder in the Deep South to say this in public”

    If it is true, Carter did not work with segregationists, we should not say he did.

    • myrna652

      My Uncle Dylan recently got a nearly new gold Acura RDX SUV by working part time online… best site w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

      • tagalog

        Was it harder to get than it is to vote?

    • Gee

      Carter hates Jews – this I know from personal experience at the White House in 1980 where I worked as a translator.

      • wildjew

        It seems to me Carter had a Jewish scholar / friend helping him on some things relating to Israel. Maybe you remember. Some organization. After Carter’s book, “Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid,” went into print, Carter’s Jewish friend resigned.

        Here it is: “A veteran Middle East scholar affiliated with the Carter Center in Atlanta resigned his position there Monday in an escalating controversy over former president Jimmy Carter’s bestselling book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

        The book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” traces the ups and downs of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process beginning with Carter’s 1977-1980 presidency and the historic peace accord he negotiated between Israel andEgypt and continuing to the present. Although it apportions blame to Israel, the Palestinians and outside parties — including the United States — for the failure of decades of peace efforts, it is sharply critical of Israeli policy and concludes that “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.”

        Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University, accused Carter of factual errors, omissions and plagiarism in the book. “Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information,” Stein wrote in a harshly worded e-mail to friends and colleagues explaining his resignation as the center’s Middle East fellow….”

    • CowboyUp

      Did wiki mention Georgia ran a surplus until carter was elected Governor and a deficit when he left? That never seems to make it into the books.

      • wildjew

        Sorry. I did not read the entire article. I was looking for Carter’s position on segregation. Carter is already widely labeled an anti-Semite within conservative circles. It seems to me if Carter had an early history of supporting racial segregation it would have gotten a lot of play. I have not looked at Clinton yet. Both men were / are southerners. I believe Limbaugh has asserted that Bill Clinton was a proponent of segregation. Maybe I’ve gotten that wrong. I never looked into it. Have you?

        Here, just found the following: “The 1960s were an eventful time in American history, and the civil rights movement was gathering momentum. In 1962, Martin Luther King made his groundbreaking “I have a dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The young Clinton was deeply stirred and inspired by Martin Luther King’s speech – so much so that he memorised it!”

        • CowboyUp

          Clinton’s first political employer and mentor was Sen Fulbright, a staunch segregationist. He’s been caught in several untruths in his recollection of the civil rights movement, notably about church burnings.

          The carter story about his Baptist church is plausible, but I have no first or secondhand information on it. Many Southern Baptist churches helped with the civil rights movement and began desegregation early. The civil rights movement was before my time and I never knew segregation. But my mom, who taught Sunday School from age 16, told me when the klan started bombing churches, they knocked a lot of ambivalent people off the fence, and especially PO’d the Baptists. That was when the klan was “run out of town.”

          • JDinSTL

            How is it that the Democrats are able to run against the Klan when they were the Klan?

          • CowboyUp

            The same way they claim to be the civil rights party, though they were the ones who fought it tooth and nail. It’s simple. They lie, and the msm covers for them.

    • Charles Martel

      When would you use Wikipedia as a source for actual research especially on political figures? That source has been heavily contaminate by liberals primarily and conservatives to a lesser extent to distort information to justify their various causes.

      Carter did in fact help wreck Southern segregation helping to destroy a once vibrant culture. Now instead of equal but separate, we have equal and all stupid when it comes to education especially so. Also, who the heck is Carter or anyone else to tell me who, when or where I can associate with? If a black man chooses to go to an all black church why does that offend me as long as I am allowed to do the same?

      Speaking of vibrancy, has anyone looked at the once great city of Birmingham Alabama lately? Cultural vibrancy certainly hasn’t done much for that city. But of course we must blame it on Democratic rule and liberal policy, it can’t have anything to do with demographics can it.

      • wildjew

        I use Wikipedia because it is “convenient.” I am well aware accusations of largely left-leaning bias. Wikipedia is not going to be the final word on an issue. It is a place to start. That is why I wrote, “Maybe there is information missing from this Wikipedia article?” Robert Spencer has written Wikipedia got several things wrong on his bio. One thing Wikipedia does is to print at the top, the accuracy of this article is “disputed” if it is, and provide a section (I rarely go to) where readers can make known the issues they have with its content. Often I see it on issues related to Israel are disputed. The other day I read a piece on alleged Iranian involvement in the 9/11 attacks. The Wikipedia article was pretty damning and sure enough its facts were disputed.

        You are arguing something quite different from Matthew Vadum, the author of this piece. You seem to be confirming Wikipedia’s assertion that Carter was never a segregationist. You want to go back to the days of Jim Crow laws which mandated racial segregation in public places; restaurants motels, public schools, etc. Am I reading you correctly?

  • bluffcreek1967

    MLK wanted blacks to live in a nation where they are judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Well, blacks have consistently proven the content of their character, and this explains why so many whites want nothing to do with them.

    A very large percentage of American blacks have proven to the world that they would prefer to live off the government rather than work, they bring to ruin every (not some or a few) community they dwell in, their crime rates are astronomical, their IQs are far lower than whites and asians, drug use and out-of-wedock births run rampant within every inner-city, and all the while they remain ungrateful and steadfast in their hatred of the white man.

    Whites need to stop trying to ‘save’ and ‘help’ blacks and allow them as a people to grow up and stand up on their own two feet. But as long as we continue to ‘reach out’ to them and as long as they are willing to accept a ‘helping hand,’ it will never happen. The insane levels of altruism that whites generally possess is one of our downfalls when it comes to blacks.

  • Charles Martel

    Oh please! Do you really think MLK would be any different than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharton? They ran with the man and knew him personally. Do you think he wrote most of his speeches? Have you not read the true history of the type man King was? He would have been Obama’s right hand man.

    This man should never be held up as a hero to anyone. He was a lying, cheating, woman beater. He couldn’t even remain faithful to his wife.

    I think it is disgusting that we give credit to a man such as he. It is like giving credit for the restoration of South Africa to Nelson Mandela.

    • bluffcreek1967

      Outstanding points Charles! MLK was indeed a charlatan and a very immoral man. If he were alive today, he would on board with everything our Kenyan president wants to do.

      For those of you who aren’t aware, MLK was essentially a communist. He had strong sympathies for communism, and while he probably would not overtly describe himself as one, the evidence strongly suggests that this was where his heart was at politically.

      MLK was also a serial adulterer. Even on the night before his death, he was in the company of prostitutes and, apparently, had engaged in a dragged-out fight with one of them. How lovely of ‘Saint King.’ He was a confirmed plagiarist. This is no longer even in dispute. The man was an agitator and con-artist in every conceivable way.

      • dennis x

        And he was a republican!!!!!

        • bluffcreek1967

          No, he wasn’t. He was neither a registered Republican nor a registered Democrat – although he admitted that he generally voted along the lines of the Democrat ticket. He tried to stay somewhat neutral and not align with any particular party so that he could be free to criticize both. I think that was wise on his part, and I give him credit for it.

    • Seek

      Finally, someone here deals with reality besides myself. In point of fact, Jackson and Sharpton each got their first job in the civil rights movement working for King’s SCLC. MLK was no friend to conservatives. He hated Barry Goldwater in particular and said so in his interview with Playboy magazine.

  • VHG1

    It obvious now why all of a sudden, Oprah had a racial incident, and so many others started claiming “race” again the past few weeks! Obama’s been preaching violence for so long he’s infected the entire nation with his divisive language! He wants violence, that’s his legacy

  • tagalog

    Bill Clinton surely knows that it’s been the law for quite a long time that a person purchasing a firearm MUST show a valid form of ID in order to complete a purchase, and furthermore, to through a background (that’s also been the law for a long time). Re “assault weapons,” quite a few states prohibit people from having them, the Second Amendment to the contrary notwithstanding.
    So it’s difficult to understand the sense of his statement that it ought not to be harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon. It’s been harder to buy an “assault weapon” than it is to vote for a long time.

  • RamonaG

    I refuse to listen to anything that POS says! Whenever I hear his voice, I shut it off…

  • Chris Shugart

    The Dems have turned MLK into their own political marketing brand. They will shamelessly slap the MLK label onto anything they think will make a sale. Everything from health care to barbecue sauce, there’s no stoop too low or message too profane.

  • tagalog

    “We’re marchin'” is hardly on the same plane as “I have a dream today.”

    As Phil Ochs sang so long ago, I ain’t a-marchin’ any more.

  • Charles Martel

    We must recognize the price we are paying for maintaining this facade of political correctness. I claim proudly that I hate no one group but I love my own race and prefer to hang around with the same. If that makes me a racist so be it.

    I am the racist Cracka! Proclaim it from the roof tops!

  • Christopher Riddle

    Obama hasn’t EARNED The Right To Polish Dr. King’s SHOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Judahlevi

    Obama does not even understand MLK’s dream. His ideological lenses cannot perceive a society without the color of a person’s skin being the most important identifier. To Obama, people are either black or white – nothing else matters. It is a very primitive worldview.

    MLK stressed character over skin color. Character is an individual trait, not a group trait. Obama stresses skin color over character and views people as groups not as individuals. There is a huge difference.

    The truth is that people are individuals, not groups. “”A single human was first created for the sake of peace in the human race, so no person might say to his friend, “My ancestor was greater than your ancestor.””

    We are all equal and deserving of respect for being human.

    • Seek

      Tell all that to the blacks. To them, blackness is everything. You’re a naif. King most certainly was a champion of black rights. His utopian universalism was his Christian side, but he had a black supremicist side a mile wide as well. He only showed that to his own kind.

      • Judahlevi

        I tell this to all people no matter what color their skin or what gender they are. MLK was not a perfect man, we all know that. But his “dream” is the right approach to human relations and much better than seeing people only by skin color.

        Everyone, including you, need to stop thinking of people as groups based on something as arbitrary as the color of their skin. Until you stop doing it, how do you expect others to?

  • Seek

    The problem with Matt, like so many well-meaning “conservatives,” is that he casts blacks as noble suffering victims. They are not victims. They are victimizers. They are the ones who are terrorizing, beating, robbing, raping, rioting, dealing drugs and ripping off the welfare system.
    It is our job as conservatives — real conservatives — to stand up for whites. The blacks already have their p.r. men. They have names like Sharpton, Jackson, Farrakhan, etc. They are not “mangling” or “betraying” King’s message; they are fulfilling it. Martin Luther King Jr. was NOT one of us. He was a self-defined radical who intended to transform America. And to boot, he was a Communist or at least a supporter of Communism, as J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI files indicate.

    • Hal K

      All races and ethnic groups have identity politics except for whites. White identity politics is suppressed by the conservative establishment. I don’t blame blacks for voting for their group interests, but whites should have the opportunity to think about and vote for their group interests as well, and this opportunity is denied by the conservative establishment, which fires and/or ostracizes anyone who strays into race realism and explicit white identity politics. It is the conservative establishment that is the real problem.

  • Robert

    African Americans have have labored against a prejudice that few of us “whites” can hardly appreciate. To know their history is one thing; but to experience raw unadulterated prejudice is quite another. The solution to their suffering however is poisonous. Pat Buchanan in a recent column quite accurately stated that “whites” are the only group one may legitimately and without fear discriminate against.

    I applied to law school about a hundred years ago and a few years before Bakke v. Board of Regents. While my class standing in college was excellent I was rejected from five law schools or so and accepted to one. On graduation I interviewed with several firms and one government agency for the job I most wanted and on the third and final interview a smiling supervisor asked me to visit him, that he would show me around, introduce me to the staff, deal by inference done. An hour later when I arrived at his office, he looked a bit green, asked me–strangely–if I could speak Spanish sufficiently to appear on various Spanish speaking radio programs; at the time I did not speak a word of Spanish. And that was the end of my government career. I started finally with a solo attorney who paid me the princely sum of $800 bucks a month, this in the seventies, went on to a judicial career, retired and returned to the courtroom where I did very well and finally retired.

    White law students I know face an even more poisonous prejudice: racial quotas, a desire by fearful institutions to embrace diversity (racial quotas to the tenth power) and potential employers who may be found under their desk whenever racial issues arise. But white guys; no problem at all; screw’em particularly, as with me, I was not part of politically connected family.

    Racial quotes, of course, whatever may be the outrageous rulings of the Supreme Court and federal courts violate are conceived in contempt of the Constitution and deny to whites and others Asians for example, the equal protection of the laws.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Exactly what prejudices or oppression do Blacks labor against in 2013? Standard IQ tests? Showing up to work on time? Armed White women who refuse to be raped? High prices at KFC?

  • tedh754

    Obama speaking yesterday was like Clinton speaking at Normandy on the 50th anniversary…..2 idiots out of their league.

  • tedh754

    What never ceases to amaze me about liberal politicians is how their believers actual believe that they do things for “the people” instead of getting elected again and again. If one of those “people” ran against the incumbent they would find out just how “liberal” and tolerant they really are. Remember when Cindy Sheehan wanted to challenge Pelosi? All of a sudden it was “Give it up already.”

  • iluvisrael

    Have you noticed how this incompetent empty suit speaks with different accents depending on whom he’s pandering to at the moment ?- in front of blacks he sounds like moms mabley – he’s like that washed up hag madonna and her phony English accent. someone get a hook and drag this embarrassment off the world stage.

  • NZ 1849

    Why on earth did the MLK anniversary have NZ Maoris performing a (Haka) wardance at a solemn occasion such as this.
    How can a wardance that was first performed in the 1800s in New Zealand by Ngati Toa Chief Te Rauparaha infamous for slavery, savagery and slaughter of women and children as well as cannibalism be relevant to anything memorialising the life of MLK.

    Maybe BO is gearing up for more than war with syria?