40 Years Later, (The Late) Martin Luther King Still Silenced
Soon after Martin Luther King’s birthday became a federal holiday in 1986, I began prodding mainstream media to cover the dramatic story of King’s last year as he campaigned militantly against U.S. foreign and economic policy. Most of his last speeches were recorded. But year after year, corporate networks have refused to air the tapes.
Last night NBC Nightly anchor Brian Williams enthused over new color footage of King that adorned its coverage of the 40th anniversary of the assassination. The report focused on the last phase of King’s life. But the same old blinders were in place.
NBC showed young working class whites in Chicago taunting King. But there was no mention of how elite media had taunted King in his last year. In 1967 and ‘68, mainstream media saw Rev. King a bit like they now see Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Back then they denounced King’s critical comments; today they simply silence them.
While noting in passing that King spoke out against the Vietnam War, mainstream reports today rarely acknowledge that he went way beyond Vietnam to decry U.S. militarism in general: “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos,” said King in 1967 speeches on foreign policy, “without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.”
In response to these speeches, Newsweek said King was “over his head” and wanted a “race-conscious minority” to dictate U.S. foreign policy. Life magazine described the Nobel Peace Prize winner as a communist pawn who advocated “abject surrender in Vietnam.” The Washington Post couldn’t have been more patronizing: “King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his people.”
When King’s moral voice moved beyond racial discrimination to international issues, the New York Times attacked his efforts to link the civil rights and antiwar movements.
King’s sermons on Vietnam could get as angry as those of Barack Obama’s ex-pastor: “God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war . . .We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world.”
In 1967, King was also criticizing the economic underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy, railing against “capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries.” Today, capitalists of the West reap huge profits from their domination of global media.
Thankfully, we now have the Internet and independent media outlets where King’s later speeches are available for the ages.
If King had survived to hear the war drums beating for the invasion and occupation of Iraq - amplified by TV networks and the New York Times front page and Washington Post editorial page — there’s little doubt where he’d stand. Or how loudly he’d be speaking out.
And there’s little doubt how big U.S. media would have reacted. On Fox News and talk radio, King would have been Dixie Chicked. . .or Rev. Wrighted. In corporate centrist outlets, he’d have been marginalized faster than you can say Noam Chomsky.
One suspects King would be marveling at the rise of Barack Obama and the multiracial movement behind him. But would he be happy with Obama and other Democratic leaders who heap boundless billions onto the biggest military budget in world history?
In 1967, King denounced a Democratic-controlled Congress for fattening the Pentagon budget while cutting anti-poverty programs, declaring: “A nation that continues year after year to spend money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Jeff Cohen is an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, and founding director of the Park Center for Independent Media. He founded the media watch group FAIR in 1986, and has written and lectured about King’s life and death for 35 years.
The author says: “One suspects King would be marveling at the rise of Barack Obama and the multiracial movement behind him. But would he be happy with Obama and other Democratic leaders who heap boundless billions onto the biggest military budget in world history?
Nah, of course not—to dingbats who would imply that Dr. King would somehow prefer Republicans retain control. There is such a thing as reality. Why use Dr. King’s memory to slam Obama when Obama is the nearest thing to progress on Dr. King’s agenda that we’ve seen in presidential politics since RFK?
As it is with MLK, so it is with the Iraqi Holocaust. The forces charged with manufacturing consent will never do anything to compromise their positions. And this has existed for a LONG time, as this recent Chomsky piece notes all too well, http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/17048
“… Americans are calling on the government to adhere to international law, under which the threats of violence that are voiced by all current candidates are a crime, in violation of the UN Charter. The call for negotiations and diplomacy on the part of the American unpeople extends to Cuba and has for decades, but is again dismissed by both political parties.”
For those like me, who are interested in trying to see real change, Jeff Cohen is a hero. He understands that one side of the political spectrum–the actual left-has no voice in the mainstream, where Jeff used to work. It’s essential that these voices — against war, against corporatism, against the economic and trade policies that are destroying the middle and lower classes–have a place in our national discussion.
But, for now, as Cohen so hilariously states, they don’t: The real MLK would be “marginalized faster than you can say Noam Chomsky.”
God, I love that line. Thank you, as always, Jeff Cohen!
Mr. David,
If King were alive today, Obama would be distancing himself from Rev. King faster than you can say “Jerimiah”.
And, Mr. David, how, the hell, does criticism of Democratic candidated from the left hurts their campaigns - wouldn’t it help their campaigns by opening up a space for them to take as stand without sounding too “radical?
If Dr King were alive today, he’d be backing Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich.
And the sad truth is that they still wouldn’t get any msm coverage.
USAn,
It is my opinion that Barack Obama is trying as hard as he can to not “distance” himself from his pastor, Rev. Wright (and most certainly not from Martin Luther King).
Barack knows his job is to get elected and that he cannot do so if he is seen as willfully endorsing an out-of-context video clip of “God Damn America”. That’s it, period. He is being taunted by the Clintons and the Republicans on this, and he’s passing the test rather well I think.
As for criticism of Democratic candidates from the left (at this point, anyway, after we’re almost to nomination), no, I don’t think it “opens up” anything other than opportunities for exploitation from the right. Jeff Cohen and others would do well to write open letters to President Obama after he’s elected. Trying to influence policy is great. Detracting from an overall liberal victory just to be publishing “something” is stupid–maybe worse than stupid.
Most supposedly progressive/liberal blogs especially this one silence people who sound a bit too progressive and/or liberal. I’m no fan of the conservatives and their hate against freedom but I don’t see the progressives and liberals actually taking freedom seriously either. Besides, why aren’t they hammering the Democrats who went along with the GOP on gutting freedom bill after bill be it the BIG BROTHER ACT OF 2001 (aka “Patriot” Act) followed by its sequel stealthily in late 2003, early 2004 when the media was gushing over Saddham’s capture? If MLK were alive today, today’s phoney “progressives” and “liberals” would just as well have silenced him already. Let’s clean up our house, get our freedoms in order, and then give us real progressives/liberals first and then we can criticize the cons’ contempt for MLK.
Daniel David April 4th, 2008 1:10 pm:
“Jeff Cohen and others would do well to write open letters to President Obama after he’s elected. Trying to influence policy is great. Detracting from an overall liberal victory just to be publishing “something” is stupid–maybe worse than stupid.”
Are you advocating, Daniel David, that citizens wait till the “accountability moment”, the election, is over, before they hold Senator Obama to account? And, I ask, rhetorically, which “liberals” do you see winning? The ones backed by big-pharma and defence contractors or those backed by big-pharma and defence contractors?
Since, as Chomsky points out, Obama has already broken both International and US law, just what is “liberal” about him?
Another tidbit from Chomsky’s essay:
To cite another instructive example, consider Gerald Seib’s reflections in the Wall Street Journal on “Time to Look Ahead in Iraq.” Seib is impressed that debate over Iraq is finally beginning to go beyond the “cartoon-like characteristics” of what has come before and is now beginning to confront “the right issue.” “The more profound questions are the long-term ones. Regardless of how things evolve in a new president’s first year, the U.S. needs to decide what its lasting role should be in Iraq. Is Iraq to be a permanent American military outpost and will American troops need to be on hand in some fashion to help defend Iraq’s borders for a decade or more, as some Iraqi officials themselves have suggested? Will the U.S. see Iraq more broadly as a base for exerting American political and diplomatic influence in the broader Middle East, or is that a mistake? Is it better to have American troops just over the horizon, in Kuwait or ships in the Persian Gulf? Driving these military considerations is the political question of what kind of government the U.S. can accept in Iraq….”
No soft-headed nonsense here about Iraqis having a voice on the lasting role of the U.S. in Iraq or on the kind of government they would prefer. Seib should not be confused with the columnists in the Journal’s “opinion pages.” He is a rational centrist analyst, who could easily be writing in the liberal media or journals of the Democratic Party like the New Republic. And he grasps quite accurately the fundamental principles guiding the political class.
So, given Obama is a memeber of the “political class” and the contempt shown by that class for the mass of US citizenry, just how is writing “open letters” going to change any already decided upon political direction?
Yes, jlocke, I absolutely am advocating that liberal-minded citizens wait until the election is over to “hold Senator Obama to account”. Because (as soon as Hillary is defeated) their only alternative is President John McCain.
The “liberals” I see winning are me and you—provided you define yourself that way.
I must repeat:
Preachers have a lot more freedom to say what needs to be said than politicians.
Just like Obama’s preacher and DR King.
But neither one could get elected president. (Too radical)
Obama did not disown his preacher and if it was King, he would not disown him either.
I don’t care if anyone criticizes Obama for being cautious because we are not electing a preacher or a radical on Common Dreams.
The important thing is Obama understands them but has a different way to deal with the issues and is against War more than any candidate that ever had a chance to win.
He ain’t a perfect progressive or radical… if you want the perfect one write them in but don’t expect your vote to be counted.
I think Obama is the last chance we might ever get for some sane leadership and that is good enough for me …even better than OLD TIME RELIGION.
Could be our last chance people!
And he will have the power to get to the bottom of the MLK assassination, JFK RFK and 9/11!
But He can’t do it alone without our help.
I am waiting for the usual “the lesser of two evils” cliche.
He who is without sin can cast that old one.
“Yeah baby, ya’ll just SHUT UP AND GET IN LINE!!!, we’re the DIMOcrats and we’re the only choice you got, so just shut yure hole or cheer like yure ’sposed. We’ll talk to you after you fucking vote for us, if we have any time free from handing the rest of America to Richfilth, fucking the poor, sending the last of the jobs to slave pits, and of course WAR WAR WAR TERROR TERROR TERROR 911 911 911, TORTURE TORTURE TORTURE WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES WAR CRIMES IMMUNITY IMMUNITY IMMUNITY. We thank you fer yure support.” Dimocrat National Committee (We are Part B of the MOney Party).
Folks, it is always open season on hacks and shills. If you don’t know the words google them. Drive him out. He is a party hack. Like arguing with a fundamentalist. They don’t give a damn about what you think and they have no desire to expand the conversation - EVER. They are here to push their agenda - “DON’T THINK DON’T CRITICIZE DON’T QUESTION OBEY OBEY OBEY”. The animals are animals, no better than the animals in the WH. Drive him out. If you don’t he will drive thinking people out. That is what the drones do…they’ve done it before on other sites, they’re as bad as the incoherent knuckle-walking ditto heads.
Peace.
Lucky,
You talkin to Me?
Who here told you to fall in Line?
Who said you don’t have any choice?
“Obey Obey Obey”?
Relax you are free now… If you aren’t that’s something you might want to work on.
Peace to you too, Baby.
To Daniel David and others:
My guess is that were Dr. King alive today, he would not be endorsing any Presidential candidate. He would simply be organizing and continuing to preach the truth, and urging all Americans, political candidiates included, to live up these ideals.
And while I understand the desire and need to see Barack Obama as “progress” in Presidential elections - and in some respects he certainly is - I don’t think the issue here is making the perfect the enemy of the good so much as it is mistaking the incomplete or the less horrible for the good. Dr. King’s central message is that a country awash in militarism will never be able to fulfill a commitment to social justice, and it seems clear from Obama’s policy positions, particularly on Iraq and military spending, that he hasn’t quite gotten that yet.
Of course, that is likely too much to ask of Obama or anyone who has a realistic chance of winning the Presidency at this time. But I don’t think the answer is to then curse Dr. King or those who repeat his wisdom, but to continue speaking, acting and organizing - before, during and after the election - to create a country where political candidates can openly agree with prophets like Dr. King. It may indeed be a dream, but that dream is the *only* alternative to the ultimately self-destroying nightmare we are currently living in.
What isn’t apparent to the whole is the way liberal talk shows have been bought out,how good talk show hosts are fired, and how the radio waves are filled with sleezes like Limbaugh and Hannity and others. The voices of the progressives, the liberbals, the people who speak the truth are silenced. There is little chance for another Martin L. King to arise and who speaks for the masses,for the blacks and for the poor. Corporate America is the ruler of both this nation and the world. But maybe we can give Obama a chance to lead our country out of the quigmire that enslaves all who make less than a million a year. And pray for his protection from all who would silence him as well.
GORDON CLARK: Good posting. JUDI: Good points, too.
I agree with GORDON. Excellent post, judi!
“Any nation that year after year continues to raise the Defense budget while cutting social programs to the neediest is a nation approaching spiritual death.” - Rev. MLK
In 2007, Naomi Klein, in her book “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” argued that at the height of the 2003-07 economic boom, the military industrial complex was also driving Israel’s tremendous economic growth, and Israel had the largest GDP growth of any Western country.
Klein theorized that the source of Israel’s tremendous economic growth in the past five years cannot be attributed simply to its encouragement of high tech entrepreneurship and basic science. Its success must be understood, rather, as a product of its ability to use the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as a laboratory for defense industry innovation — and to showcase their wares; and Israel is where America shops.
“Young Israeli computer scientists and engineers gain their training in the military, and then go on to start the kind of technology companies that have proliferated wildly in Israel and whose products are much sought after abroad. The entire Israeli hi-tech sector and not just military technology per se, is thus an outgrowth of Israel’s hyper militarization. The Israeli economy’s tech sector grew by 20% in 2006 alone, and Israel is now the foreign country with the second most US stock exchange-listed companies. Klein’s point that Israel’s military-derived technologies are an economic growth-driver because they can be tested in situ is correct, but it is insufficient for describing the magnitude of the military’s tremendous penetration of the country’s economy. Palestinians under occupation can indeed be seen as human “guinea pigs” and not just merely military targets, as Klein claims, but the society’s militarization is far more profound than even she suggests.” [1]
After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Israel’s economy was devastated, but then came 9/11, and “suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners…Many of the country’s most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel’s status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of twenty-four-hour-a-day showroom–a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war…Israel now sends $1.2 billion in “defense” products to the United States—up dramatically from $270 million in 1999…That makes Israel the fourth-largest arms dealer in the world…Much of this growth has been in the so-called “homeland security” sector. Before 9/11 homeland security barely existed as an industry. By the end of this year, Israeli exports in the sector will reach $1.2 billion–an increase of 20 percent. The key products and services are …precisely the tools and technologies Israel has used to lock in the occupied territories. Israel has learned to turn endless war into a brand asset, pitching its uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the “global war on terror… Israel’s policy of erecting walls and checkpoints to seal off the occupied territories are also “laboratories where the terrifying tools of our security states are being field-tested Palestinians–whether living in the West Bank or what the Israeli politicians are already calling “Hamasistan”–are no longer just targets. They are guinea pigs…” [2]
The Rest:
WAWA Blog March 30, 2008: Orwell meets Vanunu and The Industrial Military Media Security/Surveillance Complex
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
The system remains the same. The media reaction to Dr. King’s anti-war stance is exactly the same as today’s media reaction to citizen’s anti-war stance.
They can’t let citizens have an say on America’s foreign policy. Foreign policy is only to be determined by elites. The citizen’s role is only to supply the tax money they spend and the blood they shed.
The con the Democrats are running is that after the election citizens will have no possible way to hold Obama to account.
In the modern American system, this is the only time he has to pay any attention to us.
As an example, ask yourself this … what success have American citizens had in holding the Democratic Congressional leadership to account? Have American citizens been able to convince the Democratic Congressional leadership to end the war? No! Have American citizens been able to convince Democratic Congressional leadership to impeach Bush and Cheney? No!
When they aren’t forced to pretend to listen to us during an election campaign, they call us ‘idiot liberals’ and wish they could arrest us for loitering if we even dare to get into their sight.
Right now, or actually a few months ago …. that was the best you’ll ever get from Obama as to him pretending to listen to your concerns and having him actually shape his policy in response. Once he’s elected, you’ll have lost all leverage.
Of course, the democrat sycophants want you to fall for their con. Vote for Obama in the incorrect belief that he’ll actually listen to you. Then, once they’ve gotten the only thing from you that they want, they’ll laugh in your face and walk away.
Or, look at it this way….
Would you make a major purchase, like a car or a house, in a deal where you give them all the money right now, then all you get is vague promises to listen to your about your concerns later?
Very few people would be that stupid in spending their money. You should laugh in the face of the Democratic Party for even daring to suggest that you act this way when it comes to the government of our country.
When Obama is in office, he’ll back the people who’ve funded his campaign.
Wall Street will have direct access to his office and will get whatever they want.
The citizens might just see Marine One taking off flying Obama out of town when we gather in DC to protest his policies.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. All of these people are just fronts for Wall Street. What they’ve bought in Obama is their ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card for all the crimes and frauds they’ve committed in the ’sub-prime’ load scam, and lots of our money going to Wall St in more and more bailouts.
If you want change, stop voting Democrat. By this time, its no surprise at all what you get when you elect these con-men. If you want something different, do something different.
Thank you, Jeff, for telling it like it is.
Only Nader and McKinney, it seems, support King’s agenda.
Nader is also the only one to speak up for Gaza and an end to the 40 year military occupation of Palestine.
Imagine if Israel Palestine became THE ISSUE?
During Fiscal Year 2007, the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel and $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.
1,033 Israelis and at least 4,604 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.
Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation. It is the goal of “If Americans Knew” to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue with the desire to bring a resolution:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Generic Democrats like Daniel David are always good for a laugh!
“Jeff Cohen and others would do well to write open letters to President Obama after he’s elected.”
Harharharhar!!!
Write those “open letters” on toilet paper and maybe some intern would use them to wipe his ass!
It is only fitting that we remember Dr.King’s murder/assasination by extending Blackwater’s contract for another year.
SCAMerikkka
SHAMerikkka
I challenge any of the evangelical Christians who so avidly support our aggressive militarism, torture and other inhumane policies to read the Sermon on the Mount and justify their position. Dr King carried Jesus’s message and he, like Jesus and Dr Wright, was denounced as a rabble-rouser and subversive for it. It’s an old axiom among clergy that their job is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Hillary Clinton secretly prays with neocon hawks like herself who have brought death, disability and suffering to millions of innocents; she supported and lied about the casus belli for the Iraq war, supported use of cluster bombs in populated areas and worked to prevent UN intervention to save 800,000 innocent lives in Rwanda. Where does she get off denouncing Obama for attending a church whose former pastor may at times have been a bit tactless and over the top, but spoke important and sadly unpopular moral truths? Rev Wright has done an immense amount of good for the downtrodden and has, unlike Mrs Clinton, never advocated or been responsible for any act of violence.
Amen, beautifully said.
Karita Hummer
If MLK were alive today, it would only be because he got shut up. Thats why nobody like MLK is around today. If you threaten the establishment, and are in a position to influence others, you get dealth with. Either with a bullet, or you get dealt with like Spitzer. After 9/11, certain people in government and the media got Anthrax letters. When Larry McDonald went on about the conspiracy of the NWO and our aid and trade to the Soviets, his plane just happened to get shut down by the Soviets on the way to Korea (right). JFK Jr.’s plane goes down in 1999, some say he was going to announce his decision to run in the 2000 election.
How about Senator Paul Wellstone
“Wellstone was adamantly against the invasion of Iraq, wanted private investigations into WTC disaster, and pointed out prior knowledge of 9-11. He was also against Homeland Security, and the US Patriot Act. Before his death, Sen. Paul Wellstone met with vice president, Dick Cheney, who threatened him: “If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you…” ” On October 25, 2002, his plane goes down.
Seems that there was not much that King promoted or said that is consistent with America as the Republicans see it. King was an icon against racism. Yet if “racism” is defined as a black and white issue, one can demonize those from the middle east without appearing racist.
On the good side of it, I, for one, have learned more about MLK this winter than I had known my whole life.
CD does have a purpose after all.
COMarc April 4th, 2008 5:52 pm
When Obama is in office, he’ll back the people who’ve funded his campaign.
Yes, I hope so.
Take a look at opensecrets.org to see how Obama gets almost double the percentage of his donations, from donors giving $200 or less, than Clinton or McCain. And keep in mind, his total raised is much greater than his competitors.
Take a look at how they slice and dice the donor data:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordemCID.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
Still, Obama has only 115,000 donors, Clinton 83,000, McCain 35,000.
If Americans saw politics as even half as important as sports or music, a lucky candidate could get a million, three million, ten million donors to their campaign. Just a 1 in 30 wakeup call of the United States of Amnesia could change politics for a decade, for 3 decades. But no, ‘politicians are sleazy’ - yeah, because most people are too frakkin stupid to get in the game. Lawyers and CEO’s know how crucial politics is to their future, and put their money where their mouth is. But most ignorant Americans complain about ‘politicians raising money from corporations’ (or, the officers of those corporations, they probably mean).
Well, here is a candidate who is striving mightily to raise money from regular folks. And will probably become the next President.
All because 115,000 Americans decided to support Barack. Sure, some gave a lot more than others, but the point is, out of 60 million people who will vote Democratic in November, only about 1 in 300 bother to go beyond ‘free vote’.
Don’t curse the politicians for taking money from the people expecting some favors. Curse the other 59.8 million people who don’t understand how the game is played.
ONE GOOD ANSWER
For those who take the trouble to find sources of real information and involve themselves in work for peace and social justice, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that most people who think of themselves as generally on our side have no clue about what really goes on in the world. These are the people who listen to the presidential debates, or parts of them, who listen to the news, maybe even Jim Lehrer or NPR radio, people who have opposed the Iraq war for two or three years now, people who would be horrified to be thought of as racist, as supporters of ethnic cleansing, or as proponents of the enslavement of others.
In the Democratic primary, these folks will vote for Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama and be content that they have done what they might.
John Edwards’ leveraged withdrawal from the campaign has caused each of these candidates to at least pretend to pay attention to the poor, even though each has been very careful not to propose anything that would disrupt the transfer of wealth to the already wealthy that has taken place through Democrat and Republican regimes alike for the last 40 years.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has pledged to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, much less Afghanistan. Neither candidate has foresworn the imminent aggression against Iran that one will inherit upon taking office. Both candidates have voted to continue funding for the Resource War.
Although I will not vote for either of these two turkeys, I have to give Obama credit for at least one honest answer to a question in the debates. He was asked who, among the candidates, Martin Luther King, Jr. would support if he were alive today. Obama said that King would not support any of them, that if he were alive today, he would be organizing people to put pressure on them. Chalk up one honest answer for Obama.
It sickens me that the Bush Crime Family is responsible for the death of JFK, RFK, and MLK and will never be held accountable.
MLK starts talking about how bad the Vietnam War and is shot down.
The Civil rights movement blew FBI director’s Hoover mind but when MLK starting bringing up how violent and oppressive we were/are in Vietnam/Iraq and elsewhere the rulers killed him.
JFK and RFK also caused the CIA/Pentagon grief over the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. They got blown away.
Foreign policy-wise not much will change with Obama or Hillary.
We still have the axis-of-evil who run US foreign policy: Wall Street/Pentagon/Florida Cuban exiles–stick in AIPAC for a quartet-of-evil.
the Big Question: how do we deal with that?
Comark,
Vote for the perfect radical then, even though it won’t be on the ballot or counted.
Obama isn’t radical enough for you and Obama knows he is not radical enough because his mission is to be president and like you admit, if he was like you, he wouldn’t have a chance.
Some here think that they can get a mind war goin between DR King and Obama… desperate aren’t we?
Obama wants to fix the things that his preacher talks about and Dr King talks about and his honesty tells me I will take a chance on him because he is the best leader we got now.
Like flyerman said above:
“ONE GOOD ANSWER
Although I will not vote for either of these two turkeys, I have to give Obama credit for at least one honest answer to a question in the debates. He was asked who, among the candidates, Martin Luther King, Jr. would support if he were alive today. Obama said that King would not support any of them, that if he were alive today, he would be organizing people to put pressure on them. Chalk up one honest answer for Obama.”
Well flyerman, You can chalk up one new president that can change things and honer MLK as a great preacher and Civil rights leader who also knows that first you got to be president before you can make the changes that only a president can sign in law or end war.
But go and vote for Nader or Mckinney!
They can attack the War machine openly because they know they don’t have a chance to win and they don’t have the honesty to admit it.
The only outcome I see of what you want Obama to do, is get himself killed like MLK before he gets in office…
Would you be Happy then?
“Too many martyrs and too many Deaths…. too many angry words are said”.
Phil Ochs
Please, enough about the great dissident “Drone On-sky”. He’s nothing more than a grand high exalted gatekeeper who routinely brushes away all analysis of assassinations, inside jobs, black ops and all the rest. And he is well paid for this countribution to maintaining the status quo.
Nothing every happened unless he says so in one of his endless speeches or volumes.
Basta!
For those who would enjoy ctually hearing MLK Jr. speak, I would like to reecommend the following:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speechbankm-r.htm
There is even a likk to the transcripts so you can follow along and notice wher words are changedc “from the script” originally prepare by the speaker. They also have some lm X speeches. To actually hear these men speak as opposed to reading the transcript of their addresseds is like the difference between looking at a well-posed picture and seeing a well-made movie.
Poet—YouTube has a wonderful recording posted of MLK’s anti war sermon. It reduced me to tears. You are so right about the power of the spoken word. It was awesome!!!
When prophets cannot be silenced, when they are dead, as much truth is drained off as can be gotten away with without making them look completely bloodless.
What remains is diluted with trivialities.
Then they are sealed in plastic, placed on a pedestal and, if needed, their birthday becomes a national holiday.
King, like Malcolm X, was a truth seeker and a truth teller. When he saw injustice and cruelty, he did not check the opinion polls before speaking. For that he was criticized mercilessly by the press, the government and in most white churches.
Another thing about King - he did not depend on the Star System of leadership. He did not say “I am your saviour”. He realized that he would be insignificant without the support of many thousands who were willing to go door to door, to march, to register to vote, to boycott. He used his eloquence to organize, inspire and “embolden” ordinary people to act on their glimmering consciousness.
Without that, the left is sad.