Martin Luther King -- Under the Liberal Bus

Today, during Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday, one part of the man’s legacy that will be most honored is his famous “I Have A Dream" speech, delivered 28 August 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C., In that speech King said, “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.”

But, as we listen to all the accolades given to Dr. King, we might ask ourselves, how many of those who tout his Dream, which describes the true answer to racism, actually practice it?

When witnesses of various races in Ferguson, Missouri, testified that black teenager Michael Brown did indeed rob a store, assault a clerk, try to wrest the gun from the police officer who tried to hold him accountable, and finally attack that officer in an apparent attempt to overpower him, rioters and their supporters, which included the mainstream media, all sorts of celebrities, and race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demanded that Brown not be judged by concrete evidence of the quality of his character but that the color of his skin made him immune to such judgment. Furthermore, they declared that anyone who tried to apply such judgment (in effect, applying King’s Dream) was a racist.

Doesn’t that mean they were calling Martin Luther King Jr. a racist?

Never mind that officer Darren Wilson tried to arrest Brown after “The Gentle Giant” had robbed a convenience store and battered a clerk, people across the country demanded that Wilson be tried and punished for the “crime” he committed by trying to hold Brown accountable for the content of his character. And they called him “racist” for doing so.

Doesn’t that mean liberals are calling those of us who act according to Martin Luther King’s Dream racist? And doesn’t that, in turn, constitute demanding that we go back to the very kind of racist thinking that King fought so hard to counter -- judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character?

It is ironic, to say the least that the very people who consider themselves to be the heir to King’s legacy -- political liberals -- are working the hardest to subvert it.

It becomes less ironic, however, when one considers that classifying people in terms of “Us” and “Them” is the standard M.O. for contemporary liberalism.

Liberals subvert King’s dream by working to maximize, rather than minimize, the number of situations in which we are most likely to judge someone according to “us or them” categories such as skin color. They do this by accumulating an endless number of constituent groups defined according to characteristics by which the members of those groups are able to think of themselves as “victims” -- blacks, gays, Climate Change alarmists, pro-abortionists, Occupy Wall Street-ers, “undocumented” immigrants, the poor, and the newest category: “Islamophobia”-incited Muslims.

Having identified these “Us's" liberals purport to advocate for and protect all them against the one universal “Them:” racist, homophobic, Climate Change deny-ing, War on Women waging, 1%er, Islamophobic, Republican Tea Partying conservatives.

For this service liberals ask only that the “Us's" vote Democrat and raise enough hell to keep “Them” (liberals’ political opponents) intimidated and on the defensive.

What do liberals protect these “Us's" from? Being judged according to the content of their character, of course.

I’ve already mentioned the Michael Brown case, and most of you are familiar with the Eric Garner case, which has been used to make the same point in New York. Add to those examples the recent terror attack in Paris. Although people who considered themselves “Islamists” (actually, they considered themselves Muslims) murdered 12 people who worked at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, liberals have turned the Islamists into the victims and the victims into perpetrators. This act of terror was the cartoonists’ fault, say liberal commentators, because the cartoonists “incited” the murderers.

How did they incite them? By judging certain Muslims by the content of their character as indicated by their actions (murder, rape, and torture, among them) rather than treating them as immune to judgment because they belonged to a group that can be cast as a victim according to the dictates of contemporary liberalism. 

In view of all that, perhaps the best way to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday would be to spend the day considering how many of the people who drape themselves in the man’s legacy are, in truth, doing all they can to destroy his Dream.

Today, during Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday, one part of the man’s legacy that will be most honored is his famous “I Have A Dream" speech, delivered 28 August 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C., In that speech King said, “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.”

But, as we listen to all the accolades given to Dr. King, we might ask ourselves, how many of those who tout his Dream, which describes the true answer to racism, actually practice it?

When witnesses of various races in Ferguson, Missouri, testified that black teenager Michael Brown did indeed rob a store, assault a clerk, try to wrest the gun from the police officer who tried to hold him accountable, and finally attack that officer in an apparent attempt to overpower him, rioters and their supporters, which included the mainstream media, all sorts of celebrities, and race baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson demanded that Brown not be judged by concrete evidence of the quality of his character but that the color of his skin made him immune to such judgment. Furthermore, they declared that anyone who tried to apply such judgment (in effect, applying King’s Dream) was a racist.

Doesn’t that mean they were calling Martin Luther King Jr. a racist?

Never mind that officer Darren Wilson tried to arrest Brown after “The Gentle Giant” had robbed a convenience store and battered a clerk, people across the country demanded that Wilson be tried and punished for the “crime” he committed by trying to hold Brown accountable for the content of his character. And they called him “racist” for doing so.

Doesn’t that mean liberals are calling those of us who act according to Martin Luther King’s Dream racist? And doesn’t that, in turn, constitute demanding that we go back to the very kind of racist thinking that King fought so hard to counter -- judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character?

It is ironic, to say the least that the very people who consider themselves to be the heir to King’s legacy -- political liberals -- are working the hardest to subvert it.

It becomes less ironic, however, when one considers that classifying people in terms of “Us” and “Them” is the standard M.O. for contemporary liberalism.

Liberals subvert King’s dream by working to maximize, rather than minimize, the number of situations in which we are most likely to judge someone according to “us or them” categories such as skin color. They do this by accumulating an endless number of constituent groups defined according to characteristics by which the members of those groups are able to think of themselves as “victims” -- blacks, gays, Climate Change alarmists, pro-abortionists, Occupy Wall Street-ers, “undocumented” immigrants, the poor, and the newest category: “Islamophobia”-incited Muslims.

Having identified these “Us's" liberals purport to advocate for and protect all them against the one universal “Them:” racist, homophobic, Climate Change deny-ing, War on Women waging, 1%er, Islamophobic, Republican Tea Partying conservatives.

For this service liberals ask only that the “Us's" vote Democrat and raise enough hell to keep “Them” (liberals’ political opponents) intimidated and on the defensive.

What do liberals protect these “Us's" from? Being judged according to the content of their character, of course.

I’ve already mentioned the Michael Brown case, and most of you are familiar with the Eric Garner case, which has been used to make the same point in New York. Add to those examples the recent terror attack in Paris. Although people who considered themselves “Islamists” (actually, they considered themselves Muslims) murdered 12 people who worked at the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, liberals have turned the Islamists into the victims and the victims into perpetrators. This act of terror was the cartoonists’ fault, say liberal commentators, because the cartoonists “incited” the murderers.

How did they incite them? By judging certain Muslims by the content of their character as indicated by their actions (murder, rape, and torture, among them) rather than treating them as immune to judgment because they belonged to a group that can be cast as a victim according to the dictates of contemporary liberalism. 

In view of all that, perhaps the best way to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr’s birthday would be to spend the day considering how many of the people who drape themselves in the man’s legacy are, in truth, doing all they can to destroy his Dream.