Martin Luther King would not be happy with obama


Martin Luther King said that he dreamed of a world where one day they would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.


  1. Uses (half) his race as a tool to get ahead
  2. Has had his minions refuse to give contracts to whites even if they were more deserving
  3. Has supported affirmative action, keeping more deserving whites out of college just because they weren’t minority.
  4. Used violence and intimidation to keep whites out of polls
  5. Has constantly disparaged the Christian faith
  6. Has used his race as a reason his opponents are against him when they are obviously against his policies
  7. He is racist against other blacks who aren’t his political allies

For these reasons and others, Martin Luther King would not be impressed with ubama unless Martin Luther King’s supposed dream was just a lie and he actually wanted to live in a world where whites had to suffer for their supposed greed, imperialism and racism.

Martin Luther King’s actions did not succeed in making the world a better place, but I’d like to believe he meant what he said because he had nothing to gain from lying.

So assuming he didn’t lie about his dream, he would not be happy at all with the kenyan usurper.


I’m in no position to say what Dr. King would and would not be happy with becasue I am not him. But I can say that what Dr. King preached and wished for has not happened in its entirety. Racism is not as bad as it used to be but it is still around. I can say that Dr. King would be proud at the fact that America is at the point where it can have a black President(popular or not) but at the same time he would also be disappointed at the state of race relations despite reaching said point.


Racism is around because blacks walk around with a chip on their shoulder demanding EVERYTHING and sometimes other people get sick and tired of it.


Please do deluge yourself into thinking that racism exists only because you think all black people think they are entitled to everything. people who live out near my grandparents have a little corner of town where black people don’t go becasue of racist white people. These people don’t hate blacks becasue of the ignorant reason you just described. They hate blacks becasue their daddy and their daddy’s daddy hated blacks and that is the way they were raised.


And there are places in LA where you better not even hope to be in come dark, if you are white. I have mixed race kids and grand kids. I have seen racism from all sides. I have seen the people Caroline speaks of.
Racism would be an isolated thing,if blacks were held to the same “racism standards” as us. Just imagine if I opened an “all white” college, or WET (White Entertainment TV), or if I made a movie titled “Black Men Can’t Swim”.


Oh no don’t get me wrong I understand that blacks have gotten away with a lot of stuff that they shouldn’t have. It just seemed to me that Caroline was painting a picture that it is all black peoples fault for racism. I agree that we should all be held to the same “racism standards”. Equality must go both ways in all regards.


let me direct you to shop in richmond, dc and the hampton area. Also let me direct you to the topic of the Ocala Melee. I am not condemning all black Americans. Only the ones that fit the description and they, like homosexuals, are right up front demanding attention, so that no one sees the decent people, black and white. Just because it offends your particular sensibilities does not mean i am going to shut up. I’m right. and even if i wasn’t right, I HAVE the right. Same as you.


You are right, that so often the “wrong ones” are demanding attention, so you don’t see those who are quietly living decent lives.


Martin Luther King was a Conservative precisely because he was NOT a Racist.

The Demoncrat Party was the home of Racism in the 1960’s just like they are the mother ship of Racism today, King knew that.

Martin Luther King did not need any “shortcuts” and he did not want any “shortcuts”. He was most definitely NOT a Socialist and he had no desire to steal from anyone so he could sit on his butt all day.


If you don’t, you must not travel a lot. Just the other day I went and saw a museum exhibit manned by an extremely knowledgeable old historian who happened to be black…and if you go anywhere in the Caribbean, chances are your driver or tour guide will be black, and they’re always quite nice.


What? King was nothing near a conservative. He opposed the Vietnam War and claimed America had committed more war crimes than any other nation in the world, was a staunch supporter of Affirmative-Action-like social programs, and tried to get a federal “economic bill of rights” passed that would guarantee poor people housing, jobs, and a certain minimum annual income. And yeah, he was also a socialist.


[QUOTE=Martin Luther King Jr.; Frogmore, S.C. November 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff. ]
*You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism. *[/QUOTE]



Why would the majority in America need their own channel?

Black people have a channel, and gay people have a parade, because they more often then not, have a very distinct culture and they are the minority. White people don’t have to worry about a channel or whatever, because they are the majority, and they don’t have to worry about carving out a niche.

I’d rather it be that they don’t want/need a specific channel or parade so they can reach out to their culture, or be involved with it, but it’s not like that. There’s a demand for it from those groups, and when there’s a demand, these things are going to be made.

I thought it was funny that Glenn Beck was praising MLK back in August, after going after social justice (which MLK believed in) for months and months…


I scarcely travel at all; but I was only referring to the fact you can’t help but notice those who are constantly demanding attention. I honestly don’t see much of those, either, but they are the ones most likely to make it in the news. We have some folk from the Caribbean in our church. Nicest people you would want to know. But I’m afraid they won’t be here much longer - Elvina has nearly finished the education she came here to get, and her nephew graduates from high school this year. I don’t think they will be going back to Dominica, from whence they came now. Elvina’s sister (she couldn’t hack the cold weather here, and went back to the Caribbean after the 1st year) is working in one of the Virgin Islands, as is Elvina’s husband (different islands, but I can’t remember which is which) - but we see him once in a while, of course. And their daughter has practically grown up here.


What? King was nothing near a conservative. He opposed the Vietnam War and claimed America had committed more war crimes than any other nation in the world, was a staunch supporter of Affirmative-Action-like social programs, and tried to get a federal “economic bill of rights” passed that would guarantee poor people housing, jobs, and a certain minimum annual income. And yeah, he was also a socialist.

He’d be fine with the usurper being a socialist according to my understanding of him, but according to what he said he believed in, as for saying that all races should be treated equally, the usurper falls seriously short.


Great king quotes.

Would King support “hate crime” laws?. He believed law should address action, not the heart or motivation of the perpetrator.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.
Would King encourage “Class Warfare” rhetoric?. The futility of resentment and hatred.

Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.
The concept of revenge. Would MLK support reparations and punishing the current people for the sins of their ancestors?

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Would King endorse the “White Hate” movement of the American left today?

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
Would King oppose the Tea Party tactics of loud clear declarations of their beliefs?

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.
Would King embrace the Left’s view that what happens to others around the world should not concern us and radical Islam should be left alone?

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Would King support the Demoncrats commitment to see all things only in terms of race?

The good neighbor looks beyond the external accidents and discerns those inner qualities that make all men human and, therefore, brothers.
Would King support the Left’s view that religion should be kept out of the public square and all our problems are because of religion?

The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Would King endorse the Left’s attempt to disregard the Constitution and our other Founding documents as old irrelevant rantings?

Now, I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. 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.’

Would King endorse the modern Left’s view that “Character does not matter”?

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Would King be a Pacifist like so many on the Left claim to be today?

I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.
Would King support putting skin color ahead of accomplishment in affording recognition and reward?

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.
Would King consider killing babies a “right”, marriage as nothing worth preserving in the historical context and think that Abortion mills were just fine like the Left today?

Dr. Alveda King, full-time Director of African American Outreach for Priests for Life
“In advising men and women on questions of personal behavior 50 years ago, Uncle Martin sounded no different than a conservative Christian preacher does now,” said Dr. King. “He was pro-life, pro-abstinence before marriage, and based his views on the unchanging Word of the Bible. Today, Planned Parenthood would condemn Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as part of the ‘religious right.’”**
The modern Liberals attempt to use modern day definitions of terms and institutions to claim that Martin Luther King was a scumbag Nazi just like them will not stand the test of his own actions, words and agenda.

He was a solid Christian man who loved America and believed the Constitution should be revered, honored and fought for until all of its philosophy had been brought to fruition for all men.

He would be spit on today by the Demoncrat’s in the same way that they spit on all who believe these things. The only difference is that they would also call him an “Uncle Tom” like they do Clarence Thomas.

You Liberals are not fooling anyone, the truth always survives.


As much as I love Dr. Kings quotes; anyone can spin a quote to back their side of things RET. Plus I doubt that Dr. King would ever let politics lead him to hate a people based on their political beliefs. King wanted everyone to get along.


I don’t think he wanted everyone to get along, otherwise he wouldn’t have bothered because everyone was getting along a lot better before people like him started saying anything and what I mean by that is that if they would have just been submissive it would have been peaceful and nothing would have happened to them.

People like him made a ruckus because they wanted a better future where their descendants could be treated the same and people would be color blind even if it meant short term ruin.

Unfortunately, left wing lunatics like ubama hijacked the cause for their own personal gain and used cries of racism to try to silence their opponents and tried to use white guilt to convince whites they couldn’t vote republican because it’d be racist when the republicans are the political party in America who invented the idea of racial equality.


sigh Believe what you will, but you’re wrong. Do five seconds of research and it should become apparent to you. I started out thinking he was like you described him, as well, because that was what they had told me in school - but then I looked up some stuff about him. Not from liberal sources. I urge you to do the same. Start here: Myths of Martin Luther King by Marcus Epstein Then try reading his speech “A Time to Break Silence”, about the Vietnam War. Finally, go and research his pet project until his death, the Poor People’s Campaign.

You hold a sugarcoated, idealized view of this man. In reality, with the exception of governmental civil rights and possibly religious issues (depending on the truth of those accusations of him being a womanizer, which we won’t know till 2027), he stood for everything you would have opposed.


King died in 1968, at that time the U.S. was still not fighting to win in Vietnam.
The way Johnson was fighting (or more accurately not fighting) the war led everyone to believe it was a pointless waste of life that was liberating nobody and dividing all nations. Identifying King quotes about Vietnam without considering the historical context in which they were offered is history revision.
Give me a break, this buffoon is your “source”?

Lets look at some gems from Epstein’s “article”.

during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons
Notice he is very careful to use the term “the right” and not “the GOP”.
Then he goes on to say this

the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.
After his “the right” reference he then names a couple prominent Republican’s.

The truth is the “right” he is talking about were primarily Demoncrat’s, just like I said. This idiot is trying to perpetuate the tired lie that the GOP and the Demoncrat Parties “switched” positions so he can hang the sins of the Racist Demoncrat’s on today’s Republican’s.

It was Demoncrat’s who fought a war to own blacks as slaves.
It was Demoncrat’s who passed and supported Jim Crow laws.
It was Demoncrat’s who sent Klu Klux Klan members to congress.
It was Demoncrat’s who filibustered the Civil Rights Legislation.
It is Demoncrat’s who are supporting all the “programs” that keep blacks impoverished and on the plantation today.

No “switch” has ever occured. This author knows that, he just does not want to admit it. The evidence is how he uses the term “the right” every time he is trying to divert attention away from the well documented sins of the filthy Demoncrat’s.

But there is so much more, consider this quote from King that he uses to claim King would want a quota system.

A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
“Equip him” does not mean “give him a position based on skin color”.

The history revision continues.
Here the author says flat out that King wanted quotas and uses this King quote to establish that claim.

To do this he (King) expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said,** "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company**
How is that a support for quotas?

It is common sense that the employment statistics should roughly reflect the local demographics. All King is doing is pointing out that obvious fact and saying that if the numbers do not reflect that reality then a problem clearly exists.

King is not claiming in any way that his idea of a “solution” to this is a quota system. King always expressed support for equal funding and opportunities in the black schools on par with what most of the white schools had.

This author completely ignores a common theme from Kings speeches regarding equality in education resources and claims that a King quote that does not mention a quota solution at all reveals that Kings real objective was a quota system.

The fantasy does not stop there, here is the King quote this author claims is proof that King supported reparations.

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another
So supporting the paying of “back wages” to those who worked and were not compensated is the same as supporting the modern concept of “reparations”?

Reparations encompass all aspects of a wrong committed, that is why this term is used to describe what happens after a war when one side sets right the totality of wrongs they committed.

In Kings lifetime many who actually knew the bondage of slavery were still living yet he focused solely on the Just claim of “back wages”. King also goes on to explain how these “back wages” should be paid.

The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.
“The accepted practice of common law”, King is not advocated anything new here, he is saying if someone can prove in accordance with law that they were forced to work without adequate compensation they should get those wages.

That is a far cry from today’s advocates for “Reparations” who want massive cash gifts given to everyone with black skin.

This idiot is not done yet.
He uses the following King quote (or rather he “claims” King said this) to claim that King was not the American Patriot that Conservatives (like me) claim he was.

King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed “our nation was born in genocide,” and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners
“Meaningless for blacks” is not the same as “meaningless”. It was a common theme in all King’s speeches and writings that he desired an equal application of our Founders vision to ALL.

Of course he thought it was “Meaningless for blacks” at the time or he would not have been a CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER!.

King was a Great American and he appealed to the timeless wisdom of our Founders words in nearly every recorded speech.

The slander continues.
Next this Liberal buffoon claims that because the FBI “may” have proof of King having extra marital affairs, that means he would not support the agenda of the “Christan Right” today.


So…Since King may have had struggles with sexual purity, we can then reasonably conclude that he would have rejected all the elements of his faith and oppose the groups that coalesce to support those points of faith today?

What kind of an idiot thinks that the only logical response to personally failing to live up to ones ideals is to cast off the ideals?

An Atheist imbecile, that is who.

King obviously never renounced his faith so even if these rumors are true it means he repented and endured the weakness. The idea that he would be screaming for legalized abortion and gay marriage today in spite of having counseled the exact opposite according to his own niece is ludicrous.

All the claim of this author means is that this author has never spent 10 minutes researching the Christian faith.

The slanderer continues with this gem to conclude that King was not Anti Communist.

in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there “are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida.” This was a bald-faced lie.
“A bald faced lie” he says.
Lets look at his evidence that in spite of Kings own words condemning Communist’s he was really supporting them.

His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed
So speaking to groups means you support their political agenda?

Does that mean that all the Conservatives who speak to NAACP groups endorse their agenda and solutions regarding racial issues?

Does every Conservative that speaks before an AFL-CIO audience support the agenda of the Unions?

How come this “guilt by association” claim only applies when you are trying to prove that someone is NOT Conservative?
How come the fact that King spoke before many known Patriotic groups as well (in addition to his own Patriotic sentiments spoken EVERYWHERE) does not “prove” that he was not lying 95 percent of the time?

King spoke before MANY audiences that opposed his message, that was his MO. He never was a “only preach to the choir” leader, that is why he was a revolutionary Civil Rights leader and why he is known the world over today.

He then goes on to say that this quote confirms Kings Communist desires.

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism
This supposed “quote” came from “a speech given before his staffers”

Isn’t that convenient!
The ONE statement that this author reasons should be adequate to disregard Martin Luther Kings entire recorded body of work took place before his “staff” where nobody was recording.

Who was it that said I was reaching and embracing a false perception?

Here is this idiots reason for claiming King was “no Conservative”

King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

King accused Barry Goldwater of “Hitlerism.” He believed that Goldwater advocated a “narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude.” On domestic issues he felt that “Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century.” King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were “morally indefensible and socially suicidal.”
First off, in 1968 when King died Reagan was hardly a “leading post war Conservative” on the National stage.

Secondly, I think Goldwater was an idiot with mostly stupid ideas on foreign policy as well. I guess that means I am not a Conservative either?

Remember that earlier this idiot author claimed Kings opposition to Vietnam meant he was opposed to fighting Communism. Now he is saying that Goldwater’s desire to ignore Communist encroachment in the world means King was not a Conservative.

So King thought fighting Communism was worthwhile when Goldwater did not but King thought fighting Communism was not worthwhile when Nixon did, this means King was a Communist sympathizer and would sympathize with modern Liberals as well?

This is why people should always consider historical context when evaluating quotes. It is also why young people with NO historical context personally are so susceptible to this propaganda.

And how can this author believe nobody who reads this drivel will know that it was Kennedy and Johnson who perpetuated the Vietnam War? Why would they think anyone would believe that ANY GOP candidate was associated with the Vietnam war in 1968?

Wait, I know.
He assumes they are young and dumb.

Here is his claim about what King thought of Reagan

King said of Reagan, “When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events.”
In 1968 when King died Reagan was Governor of California, he did mount a bid for the nomination of the GOP in 1968 as a result of GOP fanfare over his speech at Goldwater’s convention in 1964 but he was hardly a “leading war hawk candidate”.

Nixon was the clear GOP choice and a “war hawk”. There is scant evidence that King ever said this of Reagan and even if he did, how would this make King “not Conservative”?
Just because the world recognizes the “post President Reagan” as the standard of Conservative thought is not proof that 1968 Reagan possessed those credentials. Reagan just a rookie Governor in Kings day.

Reagan lost out to Ford in 1976, does that mean Ford was more “Conservative”?
King expressed strong Conservative concepts in every speech he gave, only an idiot would base an opposing view on these supposed “quotes”.

Think about what the author is saying for a minute.

He is claiming that King was a** colossal liar!**
What other conclusion can be drawn of someone who spends their whole life preaching one message publicly but believes the opposite in private.

That is a long way to go just to prop up the Demoncrat’s hatred of Christianity and Conservatives.

I guess next they will have to find all the backroom evidence that shows Kennedy loved Communism and was opposed to Christianity because he cheated on Jackie.

I cannot believe that any rational person could fall prey to such a ridiculous and unsubstantiated hit piece on King. The hatred for Christianity and Conservatives is so great in some people that they will leave all common sense and reason at the door for any opportunity to slam it.


You’re saying we should judge a party on the ideologies of that party decades, or even centuries ago? You think Andrew Jackson would actually be a Democrat today? You think Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln would be Republicans? At one point in time, the Republicans were more liberal then the Democrats.

Oh, and by the way, a series of random quotes isn’t enough to sum up where someone was in a social and political spectrum. It’s not that simple. Especially since half of those you posted were in “response” to your deluded view of liberal views and opinions…