Alveda King speaks on who her uncle Martin Luther King Jr. would support.

[Calabrio]

Alveda King speaks on whether her uncle Martin Luther King Jr. would stand with Glenn Beck or NAACP on Aug. 28
By Matthew Boyle
The Daily Caller
08/23/2010

Alveda King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece and one of Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally’s keynote speakers, said if her uncle were alive today, he’d choose to attend the Aug. 28 rally that “demonstrates the spirit of love and unity and peace.”

The “which rally would Martin Luther King, Jr., attend” debate entered the discussion of Beck’s Restoring Honor rally versus the “Reclaim the Dream” rally the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network (NAN) are putting after NAACP President Ben Jealous said if Martin Luther King, Jr., was still alive today, he’d be attending the NAN rally on Aug. 28 and not Beck’s.

Alveda King is the only member of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s family to commit to speak at either rally – but the Hilary Shelton of the NAACP said the NAACP and NAN have reached out to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s daughter, Bernice King, to speak at their rally. Shelton said Bernice King hasn’t responded to them and she did not return voicemails to The Daily Caller seeking comment on her position.

“I’m speaking at the Glenn Beck rally because Glenn and I have had many conversations about faith, hope and love,” Alveda King said in a phone interview with TheDC. “Glenn asked me about the philosophy and the strength to love that my uncle Martin had. I’ve been sharing that with Glenn and I’m hearing and seeing Glenn embrace those principles. Where those principles are bound, and they’re not just rooted in the American Dream, but in the faith of our Father.”

Alveda King said she think Beck embraces the meaning of her late uncle’s “I have a dream,” speech, and aims for trying to reach a better tomorrow, better than the NAACP.

Lloyd Marcus, composer of the “Tea Party Song” and regular Tea Party rally speaker and black conservative, said he thinks Beck’s rally is where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be were he alive today.

“I find them [the NAACP and NAN] totally disgusting and I salute my brother Glenn Beck,” Marcus said. “Dr. King was all about judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That’s what Beck is all about. The NAACP are completely the opposite. They have far abandoned Dr. King’s vision and dream a long time ago because they are totally about skin color and they have nothing to do with the content of a person’s character.”

Marcus also said that, if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were alive today, he’d be disgusted with the civil rights leaders guiding the nation.

“If Dr. King were alive today, he’d feel as if he stepped into the twilight zone,” Marcus said. “He’d feel like, ‘Oh my gosh, what happened to my dream? And, are you telling me that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the likes of those guys now are running the civil rights movement? Oh, good Lord! What happened?’ He would be totally appalled.”

Shelton, who is the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy and policy and Washington, D.C., bureau government affairs director, discounted Alveda King’s importance as a speaker for Beck’s event, saying she’s using the platform to promote her “anti-choice,” or pro-life, agenda. Shelton also said Alveda King isn’t a fit representative of the “I have a dream” message her uncle left for the nation because, he said, she’s “undeniably a very long-term committed Republican and is pro-life.”

Alveda King said she’s non-partisan, though, and has served as an elected official in both parties, Democrat and Republican, in her past. She doesn’t care which party says what, but only about her uncle’s message of peace, love and unity.

“Today, I tell people in every party God is not a Democrat, God is not a Republican,” Alveda King told TheDC. “These issues [civil rights] transcend politics and I invite America to consider it.”

Shelton said that the NAACP doesn’t have an “official” stance on abortions and Martin Luther King, Jr., didn’t either but that he’s fairly sure Martin Luther King, Jr., was pro-choice, based on deductions from several of his speeches.

Alveda King, though, said her uncle was blatantly pro-life; she said Coretta Scott King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s wife, was pro-choice, though.

Alveda King said her uncle went as far as declining to accept an award from Planned Parenthood, and wouldn’t speak, or even write a speech, for one of Planned Parenthood’s events. She said the NAACP supports Planned Parenthood, too, which is another reason she thinks the “civil rights” organization isn’t fair, effective or meaningful.

“The NAACP supports one the most racist organizations on this planet – Planned Parenthood,” Alveda King said. “They will take money, by admission, to abort black babies. My uncle definitely would not have supported that, even nonviolently.”

Shelton also said he thinks Beck will use his rally to “distort” King’s message of improving rights for all Americans.

“What Dr. King was calling for was the expansion of rights, human rights and civil rights,” Shelton said. “Glenn is pulling together people who want to eliminate some of those human rights.”

To that end, Alveda King thinks Shelton is largely mistaken – she thinks the message of her uncle’s iconic speech was to eliminate different classifications of race, not keep them around.

“Our nation is not yet past racism because our nation has not yet understood that there is one race: human,” Alveda King said.

Alveda King said racism isn’t even close to gone in this country, but there’s no way anyone, especially the NAACP, could label the Tea Party as a racist organization.

“The whole Tea Party definitely cannot be labeled as racist,” Alveda King told TheDC. “I’m in a group of African-American conservatives that had a press conference recently and they’re members of the Tea Party. If you’re going to call the Tea Party racist, you’re going to have to call us racist – and that’s ludicrous.”

Marcus said there’s no substance to the NAACP’s claims of Tea Party racism

“Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP, is a disgusting, bald-faced liar because he said he saw sign that said ‘Lynch Barack Obama’ and ‘Lynch Eric Holder,’” Marcus told TheDC in a phone interview. “That man [Jealous] is a liar. Those signs do not exist. If they did exist, they would be posted everywhere.”

From the more than 200 different Tea Party rallies he’s been to, Marcus said he hasn’t met a since racist nor seen a racist sign – only signs that may have been construed as racist.

“These people [Tea Partiers] couldn’t give a hoot about Barack Obama’s skin color, they don’t oppose that,” Marcus said. “They oppose his policies and his socialist agenda. As a matter of fact, many of the people at the Tea Party rallies even voted for Barack Obama because they got sucked into the hope and change thing.”

Alveda King thinks the NAACP and similar organizations should get involved, though, when actual racism is exposed and fight it – and that means every time racism is exposed.

“Whenever you find racist acts, they need to be dealt with,” Alveda King said. “I have no problem with that, it should be. But, I’m saying it should be across the board — the NAACP selectively fights racism.”

Marcus thinks the NAACP and NAN are the ones to blame for the race card getting played this time around.

“These people [the NAACP and NAN] have the audacity to jump on Glenn Beck and call Glenn Beck a racist – they’re the racists,” Marcus said. “They’re the evil, disgusting people because they’re constantly attempting to exploit race and stir up racial tension in this country.”

 

[foxpaws]

And where will King's son be that same day... not mentioned in the article above (links Cal, links...). Since obviously blood counts... (how stupid - if you believe that just because she is related to King, that would in any way lend credence to her message, then I trump you Cal...)

Dishonoring MLK's legacy
by Dedrick Muhammad

<snip>
No one can believe Beck's interpretation of King's legacy if they review a speech delivered four months after the March on Washington in which King said, "We're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly ... I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be."

If Glenn Beck sincerely wants to advance Dr. King's vision and the March on Washington legacy, he could go to Detroit Aug. 28. Rev. Jesse Jackson, one of King's lead organizers, and the United Auto Workers (the union was one of the main sponsors of the 1963 march) will initiate a campaign to rebuild America with jobs, justice and peace.

Unlike Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally/book-launch, the Detroit march will echo the civil rights movement call to invest in opportunity for all Americans.

If Beck doesn't want to leave Washington, he should visit the "Celebrate the Dream" event near his own rally. There, Americans will read and listen to the words of Dr. King in a more appropriate tribute. Finally, since Beck apparently likes to talk to members of Dr. King's family, he should visit the "Reclaim the Dream" rally that day.

Martin Luther King III will join other leaders commemorating King's authentic social justice vision.​

 

[fossten]

'Smatter, fox, Benjamin Jealous didn't have an article for you to c/p?

From your link, fox...(context, fox, context!)

Dedrick Muhammad is a research associate for the Inequality and the Common Good project at the Institute for Policy Studies and is author of the upcoming book "Racial Inequality in the Obama Era."

From his bio:

Dedrick Muhammad

Dedrick Muhammad is the Senior Organizer and Research Associate for the Program on Inequality and the Common Good of the Institute for Policy Studies. Dedrick's special area of focus is the domestic racial wealth divide, particularly between African Americans and white Americans. He cofounded with Algernon Austin of the Economic Policy Institute the Race and Economy Policy Forum. Dedrick co-founded and is a regular contributor to United for a Fair Economy's annual "State of The Dream" report. He was the sole author for the report “40 Years Later: The Unrealized American Dream” and co-authored with Chuck Collins a chapter in the Inequality Reader and contributed a chapter to “Mandate for Change.” Dedrick is working on his first book "Understanding Racial Inequality in the Obama Age" to be released in 2011. Dedrick’s work has been covered by The New York Times, The Nation, Sojourners magazine, Democracy Now!, BET News, C-SPAN, NPR, the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post.

Formerly, Dedrick served as the National Field Director for Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network. He also was the coordinator for the Racial Wealth Divide Project of United For A Fair Economy.

You can follow Dedrick on Twitter and the Huffington Post.

In other words, he's a radical race baiting leftist activist who is just now working on his first book.

But, "thanks" for including the context, fox.

 

[foxpaws]

So, foss - do you think that having his 'anything' whether it be son or niece, should lend credence to your rally? Obviously the right does - it is everywhere on right wing blog, tv, etc. Why is it being blasted throughout right wing media? Could it be that by advertising Aveda's connection with the Beck rally, those on the right might actually associate MLK's vision with Beck's rally because MLK's niece is speaking at it? Perhaps the right wing media is banking on the idea that their viewers/readers/listeners are dumb enough to make this association - I would hope not.

Do you think that Alveda speaking at the Beck rally should in any shape or form make you conclude that MLK would be supporting this rally?

And then if you make that rather stupid connection - why would you believe that having her speak at your rally would be more important than having his son speak (which, in reality, doesn't matter either - because neither one is 'channeling' MLK - they are individuals, whose individual voices have nothing to do with the legacy of MLK).

The right would have you believe that this would be some sort of 'endorsement' by MLK - when it isn't.

And why would the authorship of my article have anything to do with this - I was just looking for someone who was talking about MLK III being at the other rally - it is basically just a calendar list, with the suggestion that Glenn Beck might be better served going to the other rallies. Should I go after Boyle, just graduated this April with his journalism degree from... Flagler College where he was Co-Editor in Chief of the student newspaper, The Gargoyle, his senior year. I wonder who has covered his work - perhaps Tulane's Hullabaloo.

I still wonder about Beck and his hanging onto MLK, a man who espoused embracing social justice, something Beck is so against.

 

[fossten]

Cal can answer you regarding his post. I just thought it necessary to point out your lack of context.

Obviously the right does - it is everywhere on right wing blog, tv, etc. Why is it being blasted throughout right wing media?

There you go again.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal can answer you regarding his post. I just thought it necessary to point out your lack of context.
There you go again.

So, just trolling about? At least I include a link to my source... something Cal has neglected...

About those conspiracies - I think the right has written the book... wait - they have written a book, not just a tiny wiki entry...

 

[shagdrum]

About those conspiracies - I think the right has written the book... wait - they have written a book, not just a tiny wiki entry...;

Yes, conservatives were the ones who started pushing the idea of a conspiracy on the part of their ideological opposition. This 2005 (?) book's title is a prime example of that.

There is no way that title is simply sensationalism meant to sell books by bouncing off an idea that has become ubiquitous in leftist thought and can be traced back as far as Hillary Clinton in the early 1990's, if not earlier?

The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors.

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies.

This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers: "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth?"

In Krugman's world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.
​

 

[Calabrio]

do you think that having his 'anything' whether it be son or niece, should lend credence to your rally?

What does that mean, give credit? Credit for what?

And the significance of Alveda King isn't that she's the same bloodline. It has to do with the fact that she was involved in the civil rights movement in the 60s as a teenager, she worked and was influenced by her Uncle and Father.

Do you think that Alveda speaking at the Beck rally should in any shape or form make you conclude that MLK would be supporting this rally?

It depends on what the rally is about.
Do you know what the theme is?

If Alveda shares the principles of equal justice that her Uncle taught her while they were both involved in the civil rights movement on the 60s, then I would have to conclude that he would.

And then if you make that rather stupid connection - why would you believe that having her speak at your rally would be more important than having his son speak

I don't think this is a debate over who is "more important" than the other.

Alveda King is about 10 years older than MLK's sons. (I think she was born in 1950) She did take part protests with MLK, jr along with her father, who was also murdered. Arguably, because his sons weren't involved in the civil rights movement with their father they do not have the same intimate understanding of the principles, the intimidation, the real application of those peaceful opposition. The oldest son wasn't born until 1957.

(which, in reality, doesn't matter either - because neither one is 'channeling' MLK - they are individuals, whose individual voices have nothing to do with the legacy of MLK).

You're correct.

I still wonder about Beck and his hanging onto MLK, a man who espoused embracing social justice, something Beck is so against.

There's nothing about social justice in the "I have a Dream" speech.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

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.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."2

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

 

[fossten]

Yes, conservatives were the ones who started pushing the idea of a conspiracy on the part of their ideological opposition. This 2005 (?) book's title is a prime example of that.

There is no way that title is simply sensationalism meant to sell books by bouncing off an idea that has become ubiquitous in leftist thought and can be traced back as far as Hillary Clinton in the early 1990's, if not earlier?

The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors.

This liberal vision emphasizes the dissemination of ideologically driven views from sympathetic media such as the Fox News Channel. For example, Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" argues that policy debates in the scientific arena are distorted by conservatives who disregard evidence and reflect the biases of industry-backed Republican politicians or of evangelicals aimlessly shielding the world from modernity. In this interpretation, conservative arguments are invariably false and deployed only cynically. Evidence of the costs of cap-and-trade carbon rationing is waved away as corporate propaganda; arguments against health-care reform are written off as hype orchestrated by insurance companies.

This worldview was on display in the popular liberal reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Rather than engage in a discussion about the complexities of free speech in politics, liberals have largely argued that the decision will "open the floodgates for special interests" to influence American elections, as the president warned in his State of the Union address. In other words, it was all part of the conspiracy to support conservative candidates for their nefarious, self-serving ends.

It follows that the thinkers, politicians and citizens who advance conservative ideas must be dupes, quacks or hired guns selling stories they know to be a sham. In this spirit, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman regularly dismisses conservative arguments not simply as incorrect, but as lies. Writing last summer, Krugman pondered the duplicity he found evident in 35 years' worth of Wall Street Journal editorial writers: "What do these people really believe? I mean, they're not stupid -- life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they're not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth. . . . The question is, what is that higher truth?"

In Krugman's world, there is no need to take seriously the arguments of "these people" -- only to plumb the depths of their errors and imagine hidden motives.
​

Foxpaws = open door into face. It's so easy sometimes.

 

[foxpaws]

What does that mean, give credit?
Credit for what?

Link the article Cal - credit the author and give the site with some hits - you guys are terrible about this...

And the significance of Alveda King isn't that she's the same bloodline. It has to do with the fact that she was involved in the civil rights movement in the 60s as a teenager and worked and was influenced by her Uncle and father.

Would you like to give me me a photo or some sort of source on where she worked with her uncle -

You are going by being in the same room stuff again - this just doesn't work - just because Alveda is related to King, and maybe spent some time with him, doesn't mean that she represents his ideals or his vision in any way whatsoever...

If Alveda shares the principles of equal justice that her Uncle taught her while they were both involved in the civil rights movement on the 60s, then I would have to conclude that he would.

It would also depend on what the event was about.

King was for social justice - not just equal justice - but beyond that - social justice. And once again - I would like some sort of outside source Cal, not just her word, that she was with her uncle during the civil rights movement - I think she would have been about 12 when King spoke at the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

I don't think this is a debate over who is "more important" than the other.

No, it is a debate of why does it matter - she doesn't speak for King - she has no idea of whether or not he would have been supporting this event. It is her opinion- someone who was 12 when he spoke in 1963 that matters?

That is why I inserted his son - he wouldn't be speaking for his dead father either - it is a misdirection by the right to include her and use her as the 'tie-in' for the event.

You're correct.

And the right should quit giving Alveda some sort of platform as though she would know what MLK would think about this.

There's nothing about social justice in the "I have a Dream" speech.

But, unlike Beck would like to have you believe, one speech does not make a leader...

From King's acceptance speech on receiving the Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award (what does Aveda have to say about this I wonder - she is quite the advocate against abortion... and her 'saintly' uncle was honored by that most vile of organizations PPFA, because he supported abortion. I guess that part didn't 'rub off' on Aveda - maybe she was out of the room when he wrote this speech, or when her Aunt, Coretta, delivered it).

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.​

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, conservatives were the ones who started pushing the idea of a conspiracy on the part of their ideological opposition. This 2005 (?) book's title is a prime example of that.

There is no way that title is simply sensationalism meant to sell books by bouncing off an idea that has become ubiquitous in leftist thought and can be traced back as far as Hillary Clinton in the early 1990's, if not earlier?

Well, shag - I have you beat - left wing conspiracy has been around since David Noebel claimed in the 60s that rock n' roll, and specifically Dylan, was part of a left wing conspiracy... check out ‘Only a Pawn in Their Game’. Not only was the civil rights movement a left wing conspiracy, so was the anti-war movement... and rock n' roll was a commie plot...

Is that what you are going by - how far back we can trace this?

And Foss - your cheerleading is so expected... so....

 

[shagdrum]

But, unlike Beck would like to have you believe, one speech does not make a leader...

Trying to change the subject already?

 

[foxpaws]

Trying to change the subject already?

Nope - just showing how Alveda certainly missed out on some big parts of Martin Luther King's agenda - so how can we trust that she would understand what he really stood for? Should she be the 'source' that we go to when looking for insight to King's work.

 

[shagdrum]

Nope - just showing how Alveda certainly missed out on some big parts of Martin Luther King's agenda

...which is changing the subject from the argument being made.

Well, shag - I have you beat - left wing conspiracy has been around since David Noebel claimed in the 60s that rock n' roll, and specifically Dylan, was part of a left wing conspiracy... check out ‘Only a Pawn in Their Game’. Not only was the civil rights movement a left wing conspiracy, so was the anti-war movement... and rock n' roll was a commie plot...

Deliberately changing the subject again.

Is misdirection and changing the focus of a discussion to anything but the original argument being made the only means of discourse you are capable of?

Noebel was (and is) hardly representative of mainstream conservative thought. What I was pointing to and what York was bouncing off of was a notion that has been common among mainstream leftists and liberal intelligentsia for decades; the notion of a "vast right-wing conspiracy".

The fact that you, as an avowed leftist would automatically start jumping to that conclusion in post #4 of this thread speaks to how ubiquitous that notion is among the left.

Noebel is a red herring meant to change the focus of the debate, nothing more. Not that we would expect anything other then shameless attempts to subvert honest discourse and understanding from you...

Is that what you are going by - how far back we can trace this?

No, but it seems that is what you would like to reduce this argument too.

 

[foxpaws]

...which is changing the subject from the argument being made.

I believe shag, that would be the pot/black scenario we could be playing - who change the subject to some vast conspiracy theory...

Noebel is a red herring meant to distract. Not that we would expect anything less from you...

No, but it seems that is what you would like to reduce this argument too.

And I believe the whole conspiracy thing is meant to detract from the idea the Alveda doesn't really channel MLK, and we shouldn't really lend any credence to what she thinks he would say about this rally of Beck's.

And who changed the whole subject first?

But, you would like to change the subject, right - because you don't really have an answer to why we should be paying attention to Alveda. The answer is there isn't any reason to pay special attention to her.

 

[shagdrum]

I believe shag, that would be the pot/black scenario we could be playing - who change the subject to some vast conspiracy theory...

Nope. Anyone can go back to post #4 of this thread to see otherwise.

And I believe the whole conspiracy thing is meant to detract from the idea the Alveda doesn't really channel MLK, and we shouldn't really lend any credence to what she thinks he would say about this rally of Beck's.

When all else fails, repeat the talking point and assert it as true unless proven otherwise.

Ever the propagandist.

But, you would like to change the subject, right - because you don't really have an answer to why we should be paying attention to Alveda.

Don't try and pass off your attempt to change the subject as something I am doing. You know better then that and so does anyone else reading this thread.

 

[foxpaws]

Nope. Anyone can go back to post #4 of this thread to see otherwise.

how about post #3 shag - or did you miss that one?

When all else fails, repeat the talking point and assert it as true unless proven otherwise.

So, prove it otherwise...

Don't try and pass off your attempt to change the subject as something I am doing. You know better then that and so does anyone else reading this thread.

Lets see - I address Cal's stupid article in post #2 - foss changes the subject in post #3 - which I address in post #4, along with trying to find out from foss if he really has anything to say about the original subject - which I am trying to lead the discussion back too, or find out if he is just trolling. Foss further changes the subject in post #5, and you, like the little lap dog you are, try to support him in post #6, but, you add nothing about the original subject -

I have yet to see you or foss for that matter talk about the subject of this article at all shag...

 

[Calabrio]

Link the article Cal - credit the author and give the site with some hits - you guys are terrible about this...

It says the source right in the byline, I just forgot to embed the hyperlink as I was running out the door. Settle down.

Would you like to give me me a photo or some sort of source on where she worked with her uncle -

Not really. I'm not particularly interested in your assigning me busy work. You're free to look it up yourself. She's a reasonably accomplished woman with an interesting story of her own you might enjoy reading about. You've done some opposition research on her already, I'm sure you'll be doing some more.

You are going by being in the same room stuff again - this just doesn't work - just because Alveda is related to King, and maybe spent some time with him, doesn't mean that she represents his ideals or his vision in any way whatsoever...

That would be true.
And just because your famous father died when you were seven or eight years old does make you the the ideal representative of the message either.

Alveda King's involvement isn't a definitive statement of anything about the event or of anything regarding MLK. And her being there is driving the radical left in this country absolutely insane because it undermines their baseless, hateful, "Beck is a racist" rants and attacks.

I don't think she's particularly important though her opinion and perspective are interesting. She was arrested in during the Selma Alabama march and there was a lesson to be learned about MLK's Pledge of Non-Violence that she associates with it.

Whether MLK would or would not have support the non-partisan Restoring Honor fundraiser this week is little more than a thought exercise at this point. There's no telling how time and experience would have changed him.

It's really not important though- other than to see far-leftist like yourself get all upset.

King was for social justice - not just equal justice - but beyond that - social justice. And once again -

MLK wasn't for equal justice?
And when you say social justice, are you using the definition that you use when you're trying to trick "moderates" or is that the definition we use when talking with people in the know, you know, the Marxist definition?

I would like some sort of outside source Cal

Then you better start looking. Though it's interesting how your essentially calling her a liar right now.

I'm sure your buddies on George Sorro's payroll are busy digging up every bit of dirt on here they can possibly find. If they have a way to ruin her life by Saturday, they'll be busy doing it.

Has Media Matters attacked her yet? What about MSNBC? Unlike you, assigning homework, I'll go look for myself....

Keith Olberman has already attacked her, calling her a " loony genocide obsessed anti-gay activist" and awarding herthe Bronze Medal in his always "witty and clever" Worst Person in the World segment. And there's some scattered hate pieces on the generic leftist blogs.

I expect it'll only get more intense and hateful as the week goes on.

 

[foxpaws]

Not really. I'm not particularly interested in your assigning me busy work. You're free to look it up yourself. She's a reasonably accomplished woman with an interesting story of her own you might enjoy reading about. You've done some opposition research on her already, I'm sure you'll be doing some more.

So, no, you don't have any source that indicates that she walked side by side with her uncle during the civil rights movement as a very young teenager. So, why say that she did - is it just your idea that she did?

That would be true.
And just because your famous father died when you were seven or eight years old does make you the the ideal representative of the message either.

Maybe you missed this part in my earlier post Cal...

And then if you make that rather stupid connection - why would you believe that having her speak at your rally would be more important than having his son speak (which, in reality, doesn't matter either - because neither one is 'channeling' MLK - they are individuals, whose individual voices have nothing to do with the legacy of MLK). ​

Neither one is a good representative of the message - the men who marched with him and worked side by side with him would be better choices. Not children.

Alveda King's involvement isn't a definitive statement of anything about the event or of anything regarding MLK. And her being there is driving the radical left in this country absolutely insane because it undermines their baseless, hateful, "Beck is a racist" rants and attacks.

Perhaps it is driving the left nuts because the right is putting such emphasis on it. They are using her as a 'confirmation' that MLK would be supporting this rally. When, her voice really means nothing.

I don't think she's particularly important though her opinion and perspective are interesting. She was arrested in during the Selma Alabama march and there was a lesson to be learned about MLK's Pledge of Non-Violence that she associates with it.

She was arrested - in '65 - she had to be around 14 - really - I would really like to see source on that. I believe her father was arrested, but, I doubt if she was.

Whether MLK would or would not have support the non-partisan Restoring Honor fundraiser this week is little more than a thought exercise at this point. There's no telling how time and experience would have changed him.

It's really not important though- other than to see far-leftist like yourself get all upset.

But that article seems to state that it is important, or why did you post it Cal - do you think it isn't important - merely food for thought? It implies quite heavily that MLK would be for the rally, based on his niece's opinion. It gives weight and value to her opinion only because she is his niece.

MLK wasn't for equal justice?
And when you say social justice, are you using the definition that you use when you're trying to trick "moderates" or is that the definition we use when talking with people in the know, you know, the Marxist definition?

He wasn't just for equal justice Cal -read my post - and he was for social justice as well - the socialist kind... he thought that the government should make sure everyone had a job, and if they didn't the government should provide a job, or pay people anyway. Pretty socialist Cal.

Then you better start looking. Though it's interesting how your essentially calling her a liar right now.

I don't have to look - I don't think she marched with her uncle - I have scads of non-proof that confirms that. Not one photo, not one outside account, I got nothing Cal - the same as you. But, she did lie about the Planned Parenthood award - he couldn't accept the award - sending Coretta to accept it for him, and she read his speech. He never denounced the award, there is nothing that states that he denied the words that Coretta spoke when she accepted the award on his behalf weren't his words. When Alveda claims he wouldn't accept the award, she might be speaking of a different award, but he certainly accepted the Margaret Sanger award. This is from a letter he wrote to PPFA a few weeks after the ceremony...

Dear Mr. Canfield:
Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.
Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion.
I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.
Sincerely yours,
Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[fossten]

I believe shag, that would be the pot/black scenario we could be playing - who change the subject to some vast conspiracy theory...

Actually, you're the one who did that.

So, foss - do you think that having his 'anything' whether it be son or niece, should lend credence to your rally? Obviously the right does - it is everywhere on right wing blog, tv, etc. Why is it being blasted throughout right wing media?

So, that's two changes of subject so far for you (which by the way you've parlayed into a book link and a Bob Dylan reference), zero for Shag.

Oh, and fox...

If you think I'm cheerleading...

Then you're whining.

 

[FIND]

Actually, you're the one who did that.So, that's two changes of subject so far for you (which by the way you've parlayed into a book link and a Bob Dylan reference), zero for Shag.

That's probably because you were never on the subject to begin with. Neither was shag.

 

[Calabrio]

So, no, you don't have any source that indicates that she walked side by side with her uncle during the civil rights movement as a very young teenager. So, why say that she did - is it just your idea that she did?

that's not what I said. You asked if I would like to go provide the sources for you. I said "not really." Go look it up yourself if you wish to discredit it.

Maybe you missed this part in my earlier post Cal...

No I didn't miss it.

Perhaps it is driving the left nuts because the right is putting such emphasis on it. They are using her as a 'confirmation' that MLK would be supporting this rally. When, her voice really means nothing.

Are they really? Or are you just confusing the outrage from the left for the enthusiasm of the right?

But to be clear, the Restoring Honor is not about MLK, nor is it a tribute to him. It was never intended to be. It's a coincidence of history that they just both happened to be on the same day. The original intention was to hold the event on 9/12 again this year, but that's a Sunday. However, the spirit of the event is to restore honor and integrity to our culture, to unify people of all races and religions, and there are some unifying themes between the event and MLK's loftier ideals.

She was arrested - in '65 - she had to be around 14 - really - I would really like to see source on that. I believe her father was arrested, but, I doubt if she was.

You better get to work on that then.

But that article seems to state that it is important...

Does it make that judgement? I don't think so.

He wasn't just for equal justice Cal -

So he WAS for equal justice.
And that's something we can agree on.

Why focus on our differences? Why do you want to continue to divide us?

I don't have to look - I don't think she marched with her uncle - I have scads of non-proof that confirms that.

You don't have to look and then you confirm this by your lack of supporting information?

But it's cute how you're already starting to repeat the orchestrated leftist attacks on her. Do you get those by e-mail or do you just pick them up while your reading all the Sorros financed internet hate during your day?

Will your pretend "conservative" friend be attending the event this weekend too?
Have you decide how many people he will report on having seen there yet?
Have you and your other friends written the coverage of the event yet, leaving a few spaces to plug in some of the specifics, like what time it actually kicks off or the weather, until later? I wonder if it'll be like the passage of the Obamacare bill. Just minutes after the bill passes, complete stories were written, with interviews, about the "racism" encountered on the way to the signing. Fill in the blank journalism. The narrative is written before the event takes place.

 

[foxpaws]

that's not what I said. You asked if I would like to go provide the sources for you. I said "not really." Go look it up yourself if you wish to discredit it.

Looked, didn't find anything - so, she didn't march with her uncle, didn't really know him all that well. He was a busy man, who often ignored his own children, let alone spent 'quality' time with one of his many nieces or nephews.

Works both ways Cal - want to disprove that statement - please do.

So he WAS for equal justice.
And that's something we can agree on.

Why focus on our differences? Why do you want to continue to divide us?

All I want is to make sure that people don't get some odd idea that MLK would be supporting this rally - as Alveda (and many on the right) would like you to believe. If you read articles from the men who marched with him at the time, I think you might get a different take on this.

But, none would be really correct - we don't have a clue on how MLK would be reacting to this rally. I think that the misdirection from the right needs to be pointed out, that is it Cal. Don't think just because Alveda says that her uncle would be standing there this weekend with Beck and Palin and Ted Nugent (really - that is what they are trying to sell the American public-that he would be in Washington DC with the tea party group, rather than in Detroit, marching with laid off American workers, along with Jesse Jackson, in the "Rebuild America March"), that would be what he would be doing. It is mere speculation on her part - and a rather weak one at that.

You don't have to look and then you confirm this by your lack of supporting information?

Just like you do Cal - you don't support your claims with anything - why should I?

Will your pretend "conservative" friend be attending the event this weekend too?
Have you decide how many people he will report on having seen there yet?
Have you and your other friends written the coverage of the event yet, leaving a few spaces to plug in some of the specifics, like what time it actually kicks off or the weather, until later? I wonder if it'll be like the passage of the Obamacare bill. Just minutes after the bill passes, complete stories were written, with interviews, about the "racism" encountered on the way to the signing. Fill in the blank journalism. The narrative is written before the event takes place.

Cal, you might not have noticed, but the tea party is becoming old news - it is yesterday's sound bite, not today's. Already time is passing it by, it is being absorbed by the GOP, and soon will be a note in the history books.

My 'pretend conservative friend' lawyer, campaign manager for many GOP candidates, and ex-counsel for the RNC (his creds are pretty valid Cal), isn't that interested any longer either. The group is like herding cats - and because of this, the real impact they might have on the two party system is going to be negligible, especially in the long term - and in politics, the long term is less than 10 years.

I will glance to see stills - hopefully this time they will have the brains to actually take aerial shots, or at least roof-top shots. I have been on the mall with 100,000s of people - so I know what it looks like. I will read the reports of the event. Hopefully they will have a good turn-out, I would like to see the charity that is involved in this actually take home some money, which they will only do if the funds collected exceed the expenses that this event will incur, which will probably be in the millions.

 

[Calabrio]

Just to clear this up, I stated something that was wrong.
She was NOT arrested at the Selma March, she was arrested during the protests for the Open Housing Campaign in Louisville.

Alveda King

... When I grew up, I actually lived in the same house with Martin and my daddy (Rev A.D. King) and Christine. When my parents got married, they still lived in that home even when my grandparents moved. So I grew up in an environment of justice and freedom and liberty and the Word of God, especially faith and love. I grew up in the whole civil rights movement that was led by my uncle. He wasn't the first in our family to stand for civil rights, he stepped into it after his predecessors had already been in it. Martin stepped in to become the next leader and then he became recognized for his works. But I grew up cutting my teeth on liberty, justice, love and faith. There's a natural connection between the civil rights movement of the 20th century and the 21st.....

But we were all activists in my family. My dad, A.D. King, ledthe Open Housing Campaign, where I got arrested for peaceful civil rights activism in Louisville, Kentucky. And the Open Housing Campaign later became a national law, The Open Housing Act of 1968. Also my house in Birmingham, Alabama was actually bombed, as was my father’s church in Kentucky. It was a scary time, but we were peaceful and faithful and knew we were shaping the future of America. I see history repeating itself with the current human rights struggle in America.

YouTube- Glenn Beck Interviews Alveda King, Ted Nugent, And Robert George (Part 2)

I think that provides a good representation of where she came from, for whatever it's worth.
If you chose to believe that she didn't know her Uncle, or more importantly, didn't understand what he stood for, or that her father had no relationship with her. that's up to you. You can chose to take her word or not.

Between you and me, I think she's probably overstating her direct relationship with MLK, but because of the atmosphere and her father, she was intimately associated with the philosophy and movement. I don't think anyone should or can speak FOR MLK, or what he'd be for or against today. The same thing happened with MLK as with JFK. Upon their deaths, they become martyrs that are seized up and claimed by the political left in this country who essentially redefine them in order to advance their political agenda.

All I want is to make sure that people don't get some odd idea that MLK would be supporting this rally -

And why would he object to a non-partisan rally about Restoring Honor, about Faith, Hope, and Charity and equal justice, and where a seven figure donation will be made to the Special Operations Warrior Fund? If I were to bet money, I bet this event will be more spiritual than anything political.

Look at the 8-27 event taking place at the Kennedy Center.

....an inspiring look at the role faith played in the founding of America and the role it will play again in its destiny. The audience for the event will be overwhelmingly made up of pastors, ministers and clergy: a modern day Black Robe Regimen. Tickets will be made available to the general public at no cost.

So, if you are sick and tired of hearing about how divided America has become, then join us for an eye-opening evening at the historic Kennedy Center in Washington, DC on Friday, August 27 that will help heal your soul. Guided by uplifting music, nationally-known religious figures from all faiths will unite to deliver messages reminiscent to those given during the struggles of America's earliest days. The event will leave you with a renewed determination to look past the partisan differences and petty problems that fill our airwaves and instead focus our shared values, principles and strong belief that faith can play an essential role in reuniting the country.

we don't have a clue on how MLK would be reacting to this rally.

I agree. We have Alveda Kings perspective. We have yours.
I'm personally not interested in either.

But her involvement does contradict the claim that the event is racist.
That it's an insult to King.
And undermines the ugly and disingenuous orchestrated attacks on the 8-28 event, and those associated with it, by the statists and reactionary left.

Just like you do Cal - you don't support your claims with anything - why should I?

You're getting angry and frustrated and it's evident in your posting. That's not good, you know the "rules."
Has anyone else noticed the change in foxpaw's tone lately?
Why is that?

 

[fossten]

Cal, you might not have noticed, but the tea party is becoming old news - it is yesterday's sound bite, not today's. Already time is passing it by, it is being absorbed by the GOP, and soon will be a note in the history books.

And yet you can't keep yourself from reacting whenever it makes the news. How Shakespearean of you.

My 'pretend conservative friend' lawyer, campaign manager for many GOP candidates, and ex-counsel for the RNC (his creds are pretty valid Cal), isn't that interested any longer either.

Sounds fictional to me - or perhaps he'd like to visit us and validate his 'creds.' I won't hold my breath - I wouldn't be surprised if you sockpuppeted just to bolster yet another of your phony narratives. You probably don't really live in CO either.

The group is like herding cats

Yes, hard to control when they're individuals instead of a collective, eh fox? Ah, the mask slips off now and then and the statist filters through - so refreshing when that happens.

- and because of this, the real impact they might have on the two party system is going to be negligible, especially in the long term - and in politics, the long term is less than 10 years.

Scott Brown, Chris Christie, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio, and many others say "HI!"

I will glance to see stills - hopefully this time they will have the brains to actually take aerial shots, or at least roof-top shots. I have been on the mall with 100,000s of people - so I know what it looks like. I will read the reports of the event.

I'm sure you've already read the reports of the event, they just haven't been released yet. The left wing media talking points remind me of "The Squeeze" starring Michael Keaton.

Hopefully they will have a good turn-out, I would like to see the charity that is involved in this actually take home some money, which they will only do if the funds collected exceed the expenses that this event will incur, which will probably be in the millions.

Your faux 'kind words' fall flat. You'd like nothing better than for your wishful thinking in your quote at the top of this post to come true. You're a phony.