Justice for All

The new Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial honors King's universal commitment to justice.


The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial will be formally dedicated this Sunday in Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama will be on hand, as will a cadre of politicos, celebrities, and luminaries of the civil rights movement. The controversy surrounding the memorial, however, may dampen the occasion.

The complaints vary in substance and kind. There's the grumbling about the appearance of one less-than accurate quotation attributed to King, as well as some unflattering headlines revealing payments of more than $750,000 to King's estate for the use of his words and likeness.

More significantly, some representatives of organized labor have condemned the memorial's Chinese artisans and their use of white Chinese granite. It's apparently galling that the memorial stones were imported and that certain masonry jobs weren't reserved for American workers. Scott Garvin, a regional executive of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, told The Washington Post that the use of foreign labor was "a thumb in the eye."

Meanwhile, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page complained that the memorial "side stepped direct mention of race." The Washington Post's Courtland Milloy expressed his own disappointment that the memorial's sculptor wasn't black. According to Milloy, the selection of a black sculptor would have honored the slaves once forced to work nearby.

The problem is that these complaints demand forms of nativist or racialist symbolism that would directly contradict King's admonishment that we value personal merit rather than color or creed.

So it's fitting that the memorial's sole quotation directly referencing race contextualizes the subject within King's broader project. "If we are to have peace on earth," the memorial reads, "our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalty must transcend our race, our tribe, our class and our nation, and this means we must develop a world perspective."  

In the minds of too many Americans, King is primarily a "black" leader and the civil rights movement he has come to embody is principally the endowment of black Americans. But that view inappropriately qualifies the man and the movement. King wasn't narrowly interested in race; he was broadly committed to justice.

Think about the distinct cadence of King's "I Have a Dream" speech. You can imagine its message resounding in nearly every corner of the planet. It's even possible to see the use of foreign labor and materials at the King memorial as a testament to the universality of King's message. Setting aside some portion of the work based solely on the color of the worker's skin would have betrayed something sacred.

The memorial highlights King's broad passion for justice in other contexts as well. Consider this inscription: "I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against it not in anger but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and above all with a passionate desired to see our beloved country stand as a moral example to the world."

King's steadfast opposition to the conflict in Vietnam put him at odds with both President John F. Kennedy and much of the civil rights establishment, who believed his position jeopardized the movement. King responded characteristically in a 1968 speech:

Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" Vanity asks the question, "Is it popular?" But, conscience asks the question, "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right.

King's pursuit of justice wasn't without shortcomings, of course. He possessed a deep skepticism of markets and championed progressive poverty remedies like the so-called living wage. More generally, his conception of "social justice" conflated unassailably moral aims like the repeal of Jim Crow with redistributive measures that promote equality of outcome at the expense of equality under the law.

The King memorial doesn't add anything to the debate over these contentious aspects of his legacy, but that would be asking too much. Civic shrines deal exclusively in exaltation. They omit the nuance that allows students of history to draw their own conclusions.

If this memorial succeeds in exciting the imagination and encouraging further investigation, it will serve an admirable purpose. Within the limitations of politics and stone, the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial promotes King's universal commitment to justice without restricting itself to color in black and white.

Kmele Foster is the co-founder and vice president of TelcoIQ, a telecommunications consultancy. He is also the chairman of America's Future Foundation.

NEXT: Consumer Price Watch: Print Lives: Wired Mag $8.99

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. To honor King’s commitment to peace and to justify his own Nobel Peace Prize, Obama today decided to get us involved in yet another war:


    “Hey, W! Think you know something about quagmires? I’ll show you a motherfucking quagmire! I’ll SEE your Afghanistan and RAISE you a Uganda!”

    1. Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.

      ~Stanley Diamond
      In Search of the Primitive:
      A Critique of Civilization
      (first sentence of the book)

      1. Isn’t there a busy street you should be playing in right about now?

        1. After you, Sir.

          1. Actually that would be “madam”.

            Now get going.

            1. Ladies, and pathetic harpies, first. *hat tip*

              1. How many fake names are you going to use before you give up, White Idiot?

  2. King’s pursuit of justice wasn’t without shortcomings, of course. He possessed a deep skepticism of markets and championed progressive poverty remedies like the so-called living wage. More generally, his conception of “social justice” conflated unassailably moral aims like the repeal of Jim Crow with redistributive measures that promote equality of outcome at the expense of equality under the law.

    This was not a shortcoming, of course, but the natural next step in achieving real justice for human beings. “Equality of outcomes” is a vicious straw man, a distraction from the fact that libertarians refuse to address: that the distributive status quo is partly the result of an unbroken historical chain of abuses and inequities, and that there is no possible way that the current distribution is the product of free and fair market forces, and even if they were, it makes no sense to put the demands of the market above the needs of human beings. Economic justice was cut off not only because King died before he could rally on the issue, but because powers who were just fine with the status quo fought to keep it in place and worsen it.

    Current economic conditions owe themselves above all else to the widening wealth and income gaps in this country. It’s both a symptom and a cause of underlying problems–aided and abetted by decaying philosophies about the wisdom of markets, which complain incessantly about interfering forces but for some reason still claim the distributive status quo as the freest of possible worlds.

    1. From Affirmative Action, Negative Justice:

      Even more perverse is the claim that the evils of the past are responsible for the “pathologies” of the black community. The immediate response should be simply to note that these behaviors are neither unique to nor universal among blacks. Are we to believe that a “legacy of racism” causes black people to not keep a steady job, turn to drugs, commit crimes, etc., while their non-black counterparts do these same exact things because of personal failings? It is subsequently asserted that the “legacy of racism” is responsible for the racial imbalance in these areas. So, what we are to believe is that the “legacy of racism” causes some blacks to not keep a steady job and so on, while other blacks (like all non-blacks) really do do these same exact things because of personal failings. Here the argument has driven itself to its reductio ad absurdum. Past evils are vanished evils, and to fight them is to tilt at windmills long demolished. (One note: observe the willingness to accept differences on the individual, but not the aggregate, level. Yes, there can be high, low, and middle achievers within a race, but the actual ratio of high to low to middle, whatever it might be, cannot differ from one race to another. This “equal inequality” is a perfect reflection of the half-capitalist/half-socialist schizophrenia of the American mixed economy.)

      1. LOL, you said “do do”!

      2. barry, these “pathologies” did not exist until the late sixties. Until then inspite of Jim Crow, etc. blacks were almost as likely to be married as whites, almost as likely to have children in wedlock, all black neighborhoods were safe, it was unheard of for people to be afraid to sit on their front step. If blacks had continued in that way and pursued civil rights at the same time they would not have those pathologies. Instead, they chose the welfare route, with the help of white liberals of course, and the reject everything that is regarded as normal route. For anyone who thinks this is racist, the same is happening to whites with the same result of angry uncivilized males and no, don’t smile liberals, they will not be liberals. We will be lucky if they are not fascists.

    2. Proudhonistic fallacy.

      1. That’s your stock answer for any argument in favor of distributive justice, isn’t it? But the point isn’t for overseers to dole out wealth based on a careful accounting of historical injustices, it’s that the status quo represents an arbitrary distribution, and should not be favored over any other scheme merely because it’s the status quo. I’m certainly not interested in finding out what people are due, I’m interested in securing Lockean rights for living persons and their descendants.

        1. It’s not your solution that’s the problem it’s your critique.

          You’re asserting that the property claims of people currently alive, including property acquired purely by labor, are invalid because of “an unbroken historical chain of abuses and inequities”.

          The problem is that if this is true in 2011, it was also true at any other moment in time that stood at the end of “an unbroken historical chain of abuses and inequities”.

          But that accounts for every moment in historical time all the way back to the australopithecenes.

          And that would mean that there has never, at any moment in time, been a valid claim to property, including claims to the direct proceeds of individual labor.

          The reason this suffers from the Proudhonistic fallacy is because if there has never, in historical time, been any valid claim to property, including the direct proceeds of labor, then there have never been any “abuses and inequities.”

          How could there be?

          Any time in history where you think you’re seeing an abuse or an inequity, you aren’t. Because nobody possessed any valid property right or any presumptive right to retain the proceeds of their labor, riding in like the fucking Visigoths and stealing and enslaving wasn’t actually an abuse or an inequity. There’s no such thing as theft if there are no valid property claims.

          Before you can claim that abuses or inequities have occurred, you have to posit some “just” state or some standard by which a property claim can be valid. At least for the proceeds of individual labor. But you can’t do that, because as soon as you do that I’ll apply it to a modern situation and your argument will fall apart.

          1. Tony, tapping out now would be your best move.

          2. While I may agree with your logic, it doesn’t have anything to do with the point at hand. To take note of past injustice is simply to say that the distributive status quo is by no means the result of fairness, even market fairness, and thus has no moral validity above another scheme. Again, I’m not interested in paying back past injustices, I’m interested in rectifying current ones. This is an essentially capitalistic argument, by the way: for the virtues of capitalism to be maximized, you must democratize entry to capitalism. Otherwise it’s just past privilege and misfortune compounding themselves.

            What you’re doing is justifying the distributive status quo with a semantic game.

            1. No, dude.

              I’m exposing the critical flaw in your argument – that in order to prevent anyone from saying, “You can’t lump my wealth in with the wealth you want to distribute, because I earned mine,” you have to claim that even the earnings of someone who starts with $0 aren’t really deserved, because their earnings take place in the context of a web of economic exchanges that include previous injustice(s). But once you cast that wide a net, you cut the legs out from under your own argument.

              It’s not a semantic game. It’s an ontological one. You have to refuse to acknowledge all property claims to make your critique work. But without valid property claims, you have no critique to begin with.

              1. But my argument is not fundamentally moral, it’s practical. All distribution results from a mix of luck and ingenuity/work, and, importantly, is legitimized by government. One hopes claims are legitimized based on a formula that encourages ingenuity and work and downplays luck, but in the end it doesn’t really matter. No one’s claim to ownership of property should trump another’s claim to basic necessities of life. You tax the rich man to pay for the food of the starving man not because the rich man necessarily did anything wrong, or even benefited from wrongdoing, but because, for one, it’s in his interest not to having a starving neighbor and, secondly, his property claim is just one government-secured entitlement that exists to promote individual rights among others, such as the right not to starve. Noting past injustice is simply to provide evidence that there is no inherent moral justification for the current distribution; other concerns are simply more important for the promotion of the human right to life and liberty, and they have to be paid for.

                1. The libertarian argument being that charity should do that. Charity and decency are not something that gov’t should have to enforce, or can enforce.

                2. legitimized by government

                  What does this mean? If it wouldn’t be ‘legitimized’ by govt., then it would be left to the individual to protect his property by his own power… exactly the situation which is avoided by the social contract, ie. by delegating the power to defend oneself and one’s property to the law which defense is put into effect by the govt.

                  another’s claim to basic necessities of life […] the right not to starve

                  There’s no right not to starve; there’s a right to do anything & everything legal to avoid starvation, ie. to work and exchange the fruits of said work for “basic necessities of life”, including food.

                  1. So there’s a right to have me pay for armed men to protect your pez dispenser collection, but not a right to eat.

                    1. You don’t pay for any ‘protection’: the police is reactive, privately financed guards protect PEZ dispenser collections.

                      You have a right to eat, but have no right to food apart from purchasing it with money earned with the sweat of your brow.

                    2. I fail to see how that is relevant. It’s still a service to you that I help pay for and you think you are entitled to.

                    3. No, it is a service to all for which all pays (progressively, ie. not even in ratio of their income).

        2. If I stayed in the library studying and waited to have children and my cousin partied and had three before she was twenty five while I waited until I was 30 and could only have two, and the last with great difficulty, and I have a higher salary, why should I give what I have to her.
          We are not talking about victorian poverty and starvation but difference in living standards, which means that the poor in the US have enough disposable income to spend thousands a year on hair styles. Your idea of justice would make it pointless for anyone to strive for anything and would end up producing nothing. There would be nothing to distribute at any level.

    3. Economic justice was cut off not only because King died before he could rally on the issue, but because powers who were just fine with the status quo fought to keep it in place and worsen it.

      In order for that to be true, the “powers” must have been largely Jewish and Asian. Does that seem historically accurate to you?

      1. I don’t know what this ‘economic justice’ that Tony refers to is.

        1. No one does; that’s what’s so great about it.

    4. Sorry, but your premises are wrong. IQ is a better predictor of where you’ll end up in life than your parents’ socioeconomic background.

      Basically, it’s better to be born a smart poor kid than a dumb rich one. Your worldview is an inaccurate perception of reality.

    5. It’s not a strawman when Team Blue uses “equality of outcomes” as a viable model, Tony.

      Unfortunately, they actually believe it’s possible.

  3. According to Milloy, the selection of a black sculptor would have honored the slaves once forced to work nearby.

    A sculptor who’d ever seen a black guy would have been enough. It’s a fuckin’ Mao statue with a mustache and eyebrows scratched into it.

    1. I’m just relying on memory here, but the first sculpture was roundly criticized as ‘falling short’ (my quotes) due to the piece lookin’ sorta weird.

      The second – current – memorial looks something out of the Soviet era.

      The Chinese artist has been gettin’ a lot of shit since the first piece for simply being Chinese.

      1. Well he’s also gettin’ shit because the statue looks more like his statues of Mao than MLK.

        1. That’s the problem with contemporary figurative sculptures: the viewer attaches unrelated psychological attributes to it.

          One thinks it looks like Mao while to another it looks like his asshole brother-in-law who still owes him 5 bucks.

          You solve that ‘problem’ by abstracting memorials, like the Vietnam Memorial or the Washington Monument.

          1. I had no idea who the sculptor was when I first saw it. My first impression was “looks like an Asian dictator” because it does.

            1. Well, King did have kinda almond-shaped eyes. The Stone of Hope looks pretty durn good to me.

    2. We can fix that… There!

  4. In the minds of too many Americans, King is primarily a “black” leader and the civil rights movement he has come to embody is principally the endowment of black Americans.

    Well, maybe he shouldn’t have chosen a character like Jesse Jackson to be his handpicked successor.

    1. Reminds me of that South Park episode where they repeatedly say the word nigger over and over as a critique of the way Jesse Jackson used Michael Richards outburst for personal gain.

    2. In an alternate universe where Ray was a worse shot, Jackson got shot instead.

      1. Worse or better?

  5. More generally, his conception of “social justice” conflated unassailably moral aims like the repeal of Jim Crow with redistributive measures that promote equality of outcome at the expense of equality under the law…
    Within the limitations of politics and stone, the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial promotes King’s universal commitment to justice without restricting itself to color in black and white.

  6. The problem is that these complaints demand forms of nativist or racialist symbolism that would directly contradict King’s admonishment that we value personal merit rather than color or creed.

    The white leadership must be honest enough to grant that throughout our history there has existed a special privileged class of citizens who received preferred treatment. That class was white. Now we’re saying this: if two men, one Negro and one white, are equally qualified for a job, hire the Negro.

    –Martin Luther King

    Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if Reason contributors got punched in the face every time they used a word that ended with an ist or an ism?

    1. The term affirmative action, IIRC, was coined after King’s death; however, there is no denying the fact that his dream of a color blind society was contradicted by his support of affirmative action like policies.

      1. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if Reason contributors got punched in the face every time they used a word that ended with an ist or an ism?

        No. Why do you hate language?

        1. The Stalinist turn marxism into Stalinism. They didn’t do it right.

          The Maoist turn marxism into Maoism. They didn’t do it right.

          Obama is turning the US toward Obammunism. He’ll do it right.


          1. Let’s be glad that affirmative action isn’t used to select surgeons or airline pilots. Yet.

    2. So the best way to fight racism is to be racist?

      Oh damn, looks like I used both of those endings that Slappy doesn’t like. Whatever shall I do?

  7. I can get why people find the statue aesthetically unpleasing (King looks like he’s frozen in carbonite), but the whole “we can’t let a Chinese guy do it because he’s Chinese” is as racist as the people who complained that architect of the Vietnam Memorial was a Chinese-American woman.

    Belligerent nationalism like that is what generally leads us into pointless wars like Vietnam to begin with.

    1. People here are complaining that former Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s official portrait was done by an East Coast artiste rather than a Minnesota seed artist or butter sculptor.

    2. Any type of nationalism is bad news.

    3. I think the fact that the artist was Chinese wouldn’t have been a big deal if the statue hadn’t looked like Mao Zedong. But since it does, that fact has been, justly or unjustly, magnified.

    4. “belligerent nationalism” did not get us into Vietnam. We did it to stop of hinder the spread of communism in Asia and it worked. where we did not succeed, you had Pol Pot and the murder of tens of millions for such crimes has wearing eyeglasses or looking too “bourgeious.” all of asia (and it looks like they are not going to be richer than we are) did not become like that or like N. Korea (about to face another govenrment caused famine) because of the US. We stopped the commies from taking over.

      1. Oh, so you stopped communism from taking over? Tour dates? Locations?

      2. Actually we went into Vietnam to bail out the dirty fucking French who couldn’t handle the shit in their colonies. Attempting to stop the spread of Communism was just the icing on the cake.

  8. …and Justice for All.

    Best. Workout album. Evah.

  9. This as attracted White Indian, Tony and Barry Loberfeld!!
    The Truth, Edward must be heir soon

    This must be the end,


    1. Not until T.S. Eliot and Jim Morrison show up.

  10. From the website it looks like they’re sticking with the misquote. They claim that Dr. King himself suggested that this is how he would want to be remembered, as a drum major for justice, peace and righteousness. I have a dream that someday Americans will tear down this monstrosity and erect in its place a fitting memorial to Dr. King.

    1. How about a statue of Mao Zedong?

      1. They are threading above
        They will not conquer

        1. No one who threads will conquer

          1. What about those who sew?

            1. What about those who multithread?

  11. You reap what you sew.

  12. Want justice for all?

    “Nevertheless, a mammoth drop in marginal tax rates for individuals (35 to 9 percent, or 18 percent including the sales tax) and for businesses (also 35 to 9 percent) would supply an incredibly strong economy-wide growth incentive.

    Um…18% assumes I spent my whole check on taxable goods. Wrong assumption.

    Perhaps Larry, if I put my 7%+ payroll saving into a savings account. I earn interest in addition to – by not paying any tax on that money spending it on taxable goods. Doh!

    I earn interest plus I just knocked it down from 18% to 11% which still assumes I spent the rest of my check on taxable goods – which would again be – a wrong assumption.

    In other words, when I put my payroll tax savings into the bank – I am saving for my future, its almost like a privatized SS which I have discretion over. Now lets assume I am working poor and I spend $200.00 on groceries. I deduct $18.00 from my savings drop. In other words the payroll tax in my pocket means I decide how much of the other 9% I pay and they offset each other unless I am spending too much in the first place. Businesses also save their portion of the payroll tax so cost come down which is always good for the consumer in competitive market.

    9-9-9 encourages me to save, especially if I am perpetual working poor buying stuff I probably don’t need – which is exactly why I am perpetual working poor! See immigrants that come here with nothing barely speaking the language and making it within a generation by working and saving. Surely if immigrants can so can an American born here.

    People are encouraged to save by 9-9-9 and when people are saving then banks don’t need bailouts.

    When people are saving, especially the perpetual working poor they won’t be perpetual working poor.

    When people are saving they won’t need a CRA to force banks to change loan standards.

    9-9-9 also ENDS envy politicking and class warfare as we all have skin in the game. No way they are raising any of the taxes in a system so simple that the opposition could easier explain how it will directly affect their wallets. A lot of the consuming public don’t vote. Want to know a sure way to get them to vote? hahahahaha!

    A brilliant plan because of simplicity not in spite of. 9-9-9 attacks a variety of problems at the ROOT of the problems. If you pull a weed it’s gone, if you trim it down it grows back.

    Herman Cain has a vision “We win they lose” and the they are the rabble rousers. Herman Cain is the man 9-9-9 is the plan.

    No other candidate offers these type of problem solving solutions with a simplicity the American people can understand.

    Is Bachmann the tax lawyer going to tweak tax code from 70,000 to 40,ooo pages? Romney from 70,000 to 55,000 pages of tax code?

    9-9-9 eliminates 70,000 pages of tax code. Which other candidate offers these sort of solutions that knock problems down at the root like dominoes in a row?

    In other words, bussinessman CEO chairman banker rocket scientist is telling us “this ain’t rocket science people.”

    **** It’ll turn into a VAT *****

    I believe that argument defies not only common sense but logic too. Sure pols might try to raise taxes but in the current system its almost impossible to explain to people how raising taxes on business only passes the cost to the consumer and the little guy pays anyway. Call it the Dick Durbin Tax. The DDT is going to be much easier to explain to the average Joe how it will directly affect their wallets.

    I would love to see Pols try to raise taxes on the consuming public. Many consumers don’t even vote. Want to know one sure way to get them to vote? hahaaha!

    Many making this argument are using Britain as an example but ignoring a few facts.
    1. We are Americans not Brits.
    2. The Boston Tea Party.
    3. The modern Tea Party.

    Good luck raising taxes on the consumer in that environment.

    The best part is that if we ever have a budget shortfall we can get the patriotic millionaires to just spend more stimulating the economy while paying as much taxes they want until their blue in the face. True Patriots! Michael Moor can even film a documentary with the frugal Warren Buffet and call it “Warren Buffet and Me”. True patriots! Otherwise we’ll have to cut wasteful spending.

    Herman Cain right man, right time. Lets push the city back to the top of the hill and turn the lights back on in our indoctrinated youth who are walking around lights out.

    Cain 2012!

    Libertarians need to put aside the shiny things and become Hermanators.


    Because in the environment and boom 9-9-9 will stimulate the yutes (yes I said yutes) will be eager to learn more about this thing called capitalism and free markets etc… as the light comes on in their head when they see Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

    These youth will be ripe for you libertarians to convert with “hey kid, want to know how we can improve it even more with a ___-tax” etc…

    Also, it will become self-evident that Professor Marxist preacing capitalism is evil is an useful idiot.

    Did I say 9-9-9 ends class warfare as we all have skin in the game. Now if libertarians want a chance to address other issues of fairness real or perceived a good place to start would be in an environment that treats everybody individual fair and business too.

    1. A plan this bold that bowls over so many problems and SOLVes them – you make it work! The only way to make it work is with an undeniable mandate because we know many pols are going to resist this, so will lobbyist.

      You have to realize too this is not some gimmick, Herman Cain is a mathematican businessman chairman banker CEO rocket scientist PROBLEM SOLVER. A unique analytical mind with a simple vision “We win they lose!” and a plan to solve so many problems at the root.

      Don’t get caught up in the shiny things like Cain is pro-life no exceptions, its not changing and at worst it goes back to states but I still say not changing. Yes he supported TARP but said it was badly administered in a way that wasn’t fair with the government picking winners and losers. His plan ends the need for bailouts when people are saving banks won’t need the Bernank.

      SHiny stuff, don’t let it distract you.

      Watch this brilliant unique individual as he speaks without a teleprompter. The potential is incredible if we can destroy the catalyst the statist use to get elected in the first place. Progressive Democrats heads will be exploding when they realize they’re going to have to defend their policies without the race card, envy card etc… And like I pointed out with the “Warren Buffer and Me” talking point it would even be fun destroying the scourge that is progressives failed policies because they won’t be able to rabble rouse to power as easily if at all.

      Cain is also the only candidate running a positive campaign. I have yet to see him fling shit, lie, distort etc…. He just talks about his vision and how we get there.

      Cain 2012!

      1. My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism” -Karl Marx

        2 And the [y]congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them [z]claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the [aa]proceeds of the sales 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.
        http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts 4&version=NASB

        Oddly enough no mention of coercion by Pilot or Caesar and still no mention of Jesus saying Caesar should take care of the people. Looks to me like a voluntary gathering.

        Perhaps while filming their patriotic millionaires documentary “What would Jesus do” or “Warren Buffet and Me” Micahel Moore and Warren Buffet could invite John Kerry to their commune and show us how they generously volunteered to sell their possessions and live within it. Personally, I don’t want to live in their commune and I certainly don’t want their village anywhere near MY children.

        Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a jackass and is considered by Christians the Messiah. Obama rode to the WH on a jackass voted in by jackasses who thought he was a messiah, or something.

    2. Marx: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

      Matthew 25:14-30 (read the entire parable) And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to each according to his ability. And he went abroad at once.

      Acts 2:45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. (they did not sell all they had for the common good)

      Acts 4(read the whole chapter) And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


      1. Marx denies the Creator and to deny the Creator is to deny freewill itself.

        1. Yes, its true, my writing skills are designed in such a way you have to read three times to grasp. You cannot get to the deep until you swim through the shallow.

          See this thread: http://tinyurl.com/3kobnnf

          Scroll down to this post or read the whole thread.

          Concerned Citizen|10.14.11 @ 1:15PM|#

          Different standards…..

        2. “We must sacrifice the rights of the individual and do what’s best for society.”

          1. A majority of climate scientist and the IPCC consensus will never believe in the concept of a Creator let alone he allows us freewill.

            Do not turn science upside down. Consensus rules, democracy rules in science and we have the majority opinion that man needs to be controlled through carbon taxes.

            C02 is a dangerous pollutant. Never mind a consensus once believed it is a building block for life.

            I am not a marxist you stupid fuck. I will see to it that no publisher ever reads your drivelyou fucking denier bastard capitalist pig who believes in fairytale spirits in the sky and stupid concept it allows you freewill. Consensus scientist must sacrifice the skeptic to do what’s best for society.

            1. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch. I despise direct democracy.

            2. Pay no attention to this Guest, I am a Constitutional lawyer (just ask me) and I assure everyone the Framers had it backwards with the “out of many, one” concept and my last election proved it.

              The Founding Fathers may have believed that a Creator allows freewill and that e pluribus unum nonsense. Chairman Mao proves I am right.

              1. Even I as an atheist could adhere to the scientifically tested concept our Creator allows us freewill.

                Barrack and CRU just gave us a fine example of just what happens when one denies the concept, they become a Creator themselves deny the rights and freewill of men and it doesn’t matter if by autocratic or democratic socialism the citizens of Utopia always end up in Hell.

                The Framers wrote the anti-communist manifesto long before Marx and Engels wrote their drivel. It’s no wonder their drivel always leads to Hell for those living under it eventually.

                1. My object in life was to dethrone Creator concept and destroy capitalism. You find it coincidental that any who believe also deny and the freewill of others? Stupid capitalist pigs. I designed it that way, and you always feel wonderful and noble being a true believer – as the DRD4 process kicks in within the brain giving you a feeling of euphoria.

                  Progressives are wonderful…just ask them.

                2. It doesn’t matter that our policies probably do more harm than good in the long term, we reject that notion because we did it for teh childrunz and out intentions were good – and that at the time we felt wonderful about ourselves and still do…just ask us.

                  1. It is Hell living here and its getting worse.

      2. Yeah, the problem with your thinking is that they didn’t espouse the state forcing people to do any of that, it was supposed to be completely voluntary.

  13. Now that I think about Democrats do seem to want to deny us our freewill by calling conservatives, republicans and libertarian racist if they don’t agree.

    Where NAZIs progressives too? Please don’t tell me progressives advanced the idea of eugenics – and that Austrian rabble rouser believed in that “out of one, many” concept so many progressives believe – whether they know it or not.

    It makes sense that believing a Creator allows freewill is a security all freedom loving people should adhere to so we could have civilized discussion.

    Now that I think about it and how progressives destroyed the Black family, I mean we have White liberals calling Herman Cain a racist? WTF! Progressives sure do behave like someone else in history.

    Indeed it makes sense that denying a creator is denying freewill of men. I can test that concept myself.

    What is really bizarre is the same deny the Creator concept scientist are the same who squash opposition by smearing, demogoging, and turning science into a direct democracy for their own control freak political gains so they can play God. OMG! Marx was the anti-Creator concept.

    1. Marxist creates many little false Gods, they even kill each other when they disagree….just ask Trotsky!

      No wonder Jeaneane Garofalo and the rest are always lashing out. Hmmm, a common trait with Churches, communist/socialist etc….throughout the centuries. WOW!

      The Framers were brilliant! We just got away from the scientifically tested CONCEPT the Creator allows freewill and no man by divine right of God, or devine right of Marx are allowed to take it away.

      Brilliant concept!

      We should get back to it.

      Cain 2012!

    2. Herman Cain should have been canon fodder like many other Blacks who were drafted. I don’t care if Herman made himself available to be drafted – or that he worked for the Navy in a private capacity as a rocket scientist. I don’t care how intelligent Herman Cain is, he should have quit his job and volunteered to be cannon fodder.

      1. You’re right Lawrence. Republicans are racist. They don’t want Blacks thinking for themselves. They want Blacks voting 90% for their party so they demagogue and rabble rouse to try and keep Blacks from thinking independently. Republicans want to destroy the Black family so their children grow up fatherless and exacerbate the problem.

        Everybody knows progressives believe “out of many, one” and that’s why progressive Whites appoint Al Sharpton to speak for the entire Black community.
        Al knows who the real racist are.

    3. Sure would be nice if the climate ‘science’ computer programmers would stop turning science upside down too.

      Science is not a direct democracy and we all know who believed direct democracy was essential to socialism as Lenin believed. Its so the rabble rousers can rile up the crowds and pursue their agenda by either peaceful democratic socialism or revolutionary socialism which always seem to lead the citizens living in Hell. I can tell youit is Hell for my to get my skeptical opinion published.

      How bizarre! Progressives have turned the world upside down by rejecting the Creator allows freewill. Its a concept not a mandate for Church rule. No wonder we live in upside bizarro world today. Progressives are turning everything upside, even that kook Bachmann is turning Cain’s 9-9-9 upside down.

      We need to get back to believing in the CONCEPT that even an atheist like Jefferson could agree with.

      Our Creator allows us freewill. And that Churches, socialist or communist should never be able to trample our rights with “divine right” or their what’s best for society baloney which seems a path to HELL on the road of good intentions.

  14. Don’t you know its not polite to talk politics and religion in a country Founded deeply in those rights.

    You have it bass-ackwards Guest.

  15. We will rhetorically smash the progressives and push the city back to the top of the hill and turn the lights on in our indoctrinated youth mindlessly protesting Wall St, capitalism in the most bizarre fashion while misunderstanding that capitalism and free minds and markets is what helps keep them free. But only if we can take away the catalyst which help put the rabble rousers in office who smother our freedoms and our Creator given right to be free.

    To deny a Creator is to deny freewill itself. And that’s exactly what the Left does whether they know it or not, actions speak LOUDER than words -at least in a world that isn’t turned upside down they do.

    1. We are all nails if the GOP nominates Herman Cain.

      We will have to defend our policies and not be able to play the race card and class warfare if Herman Cain gets his way.

      We need White progressives and their appointed leaders of the Black community to convince the voters – Herman Cain is racist for being a Republican – or we’re doomed to the dustbin of history.

    2. I forget, did I deny a Creator concept? – Or did I just despise what mankind has done turning the concept upside down throughout history whether religious or secular.

      1. Frick, Frack, WTF!

        Jerry Seinfeld style:

        Ever notice on cable television we went from frick to frack when it comes to fuck?


        Frick was a much better word to use for fuck than frack because frick rhymes with d!ck and pr!ck of which both are used for fucking.

        And don’t even get me started about those American Autumn Occupy Wall St. protestors.

        I don’t think there’s any common sense left in the world so goodbye. I’m on my way to protest fracking shale because its fricking the environment.

        1. Don’t blame me I don’t exist.

          Karl Marx is the one who dethroned your Creator allows freewill concept which is a scientifically testable concept which even passes the scientific test with a simple GodDammit. Even your Thomas Jefferson could agree.

          If you believe you the world seems to be turned upside down blame progressives and marxist.

          They are easy to spot, like those who believe science is a direct democracy, those who turn the Creator concept upside down – believe or behave like they do that your e pluribis unum means out of one, many. I am not the one. Karl Marx is, it was his object in life.

          The people who want to be the one who decides they are the one to decide what’s best for society. These people are your devils whether they know or not.

          Oh the irony, even your so called Christians like Michelle Bachmann are helping the little devils. You people already live in a world where many thinking adults believe there is no common sense or critical thinking left in the world. You can’t turn 9-9-9 upside down in an already upside world and insinuate the man is evil.

  16. Go away Guest, we don’t want to actually solve problems. We’d rather remain a debate society and watch the world crumble around us. We like shiny things.

    We don’t care that if Herman Cain was elected President and we could actually get the light turned on again – we could solve other issues of fairness real or perceived once we get rid of the rabble rousing devils turning your founding concept upside down and happen to resemble little mini me dictators.

    Never mind that if all understood that if you can agree Creator allows freewill we could find a secular solution for Civil Unions/marriage.

    Guest would probably suggest equal rights for all unions as marriages and let the Church keep their semantics and any who join for Civil Union by a judge or whatever are called Civil Unions.

    Wow! What a concept. A secular solution to the problem that doesn’t trample on the Church so everybody gets what they want.

    1. I would have to concur. Libertarians don’t seem to want a country where the whole darn country would become a debate society of their ideas. They have their little bubbles they live within too – you know.

      1. I might even be able to get published if the science would grasp the concept Einstein obviously understood. Science is not a direct democracy, and the Framers were appalled at the idea of direct democracy. Lenin loved the idea though. Democrats keep insisting we move to one. Why would you be surprised your country is creeping into socialist Hell when you allow the ones who know what’s best for society convince you to change the system of checks and balances the Framers setup -as with the 17th.

        1. I sent the Jacket an email I hope he contacts me because I’d like one of the brilliant libertarians help me write an e-book or something, help get Herman Cain elected and turn the US from bizarro world into Reason.com.

          Yes drink!

          Yes I can smash Bible thumpers over the head just as well. Yes the country I descibed is possible but its going to take many to converge as one around a concept the Framers started this country on to beat those who believe out of “the one”, many who claim to be Constitutional scholars but turn it upside down in reality.

          1. Amazing blog, I had not thought of yet in the network occur.
            Material Medico

    2. Just for fun imagining how it all went down:

      Van Jones: Okay, ideas anybody.

      Professor #1: I think I could get some of my hippie students and their friends to protest Wall St.

      Professor #2 Great idea, I’m going to text some of my students from my iPhone and tell them they should be protesting evil corporations whose products are made in China and sell stock on Wall St.

      Van Jones: Excellent!

      Andy Stern: I can get some of my people there.

      Trumpka: Me too.

      JournoList: Hold back boys we wouldn’t want it to look like astroturf.

      Debbie Dolberman: Once the MSM sets the narrative about how spontaneous and grassroots the OWS crowd has sprung up we could get Nancy and Barrack to comment on it.

      Nancy: Okay.

      Tumpka: That’s the cue for us to come in Andy.

      Van Jones: Excellent. A very productive meeting on this one. We wouldn’t want another CBS incident. Has anyone admonished CBS and that reporter yet?

      Nancy: My husband and I need a distraction

      Al Sharpton: When will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

      Bill Keller: I’ll start setting the narrative that the Tea Party is finished.

      Charlie Rose: I’ll coincide with that and and call OWS a growing phenomenon.

      JournoList: Once all that’s rolling we’ll keep pounding the talking points.

      Harry: I’ll prevent the Senate from voting on the Barrack’s jobs Bill while all this is going on. I’ll need help blaming Republicans since the bi-partisan support is against us.

      JournoList: No problem and no different than business as usual.

      Al Sharpton: Money…when will we tell them it should be about redistributing the money?

      Obama: I will Al, follow my cue and then organize. I’ll say Republicans Don’t Want A Place Where People “No Matter What They Look Like” Can Succeed”

      Nancy: I will stir up their passions with stuff like they’re voting to let women die on the floor.

      JournoList: Great idea Nancy. That one helps get out the feminist vote every time. Women like “shiny things”.

      Whoopi: I can tell women George Bush er….Republicans want to steal their uteruses.

      Sean Penn: Garofalo and the rest of us will set the meme the Tea Party is the “Get The N-Word Out Of The White House Party”.

      Al Sharpton: I will add to the meme: “We Will Get The Jobs Bill Done In The Street”.

      David Axelrod: Excellent guys. The WH messaging will be OWS “Will Be An Issue In This Campaign”.

      Van Jones: Very productive people. I mean that..

  17. Valerie Jarret: We need to crush the idea MLK would have supported Cain. Barrack will tell the people at the ceremony that MLK Jr. Would Have Supported Occupy Wall Street.

    1. Micahel Moore: I will make a documentary of all this with a similar name as my 5th one but call it “Bowling for Columnlike” instead.

      1. Amazing blog, I had not thought of yet in the network occur.

    2. Lawrence O’Donnell: I will imply a brilliant man like Cain should have been drafted, or perhaps volunteered to be considered a patriot – rather than work for the Navy in a private capacity on rocket science where the Navy wanted him solving problems on an important project. I can also push the meme that he’s an Uncle Tom for thinking for himself and unlike 90%+ of African Americans. I will do this from atop my white horse. Perhaps MSNBC should hire Al to provide me cover.

      Al Sharpton: That’s what I do, I know how to crack the whip on those who dare leave the Democrat plantation. How much are they going to pay me?

      1. Liberals, if they are true to their own creed, would be against forced service to the state – e.g., the draft.

        Well, if they REALLY believed it, I mean… but in reality, they view the state as a godlike entity, and it must needs be served up its tribute. Flesh or cash, it’s all the same to it.

      2. Cain on MTP

        What part of “Cain will be throwing out 70,000 pages of tax code” does David Gregory not understand?

        The federal government is taking payroll taxes and what ever % based on deductions for gross pay already. It doesn’t matter what state taxes are. It doesn’t change. Cain’s plan puts more money in the vast majority of Americans pockets and they easily offset the cost of the sales taxes.

        The people who end up paying the most are the people who buy brand new the most. Most especially the millionaires and billionaires! Yes it’s true. They spend more money than the rest of us.

        Millionaires and billionaires will probably spend even more money too – when you give them more in their pockets. Imagine that! Everybody has skin in the game and everybody wins, including government since its neutral the current system. I trust Cain to find waste and cut it possibly making more funds available for SS cost of living raises etc… Everybody will probably be seeing cost of living raises in the boom Cain’s bold plan is going to produce. So people not paying taxes now will also benefit from it.

        1. Cain’s plan also has working poor saving more so they won’t be perpetual working poor. Brilliant. Working poor could be saving their payroll tax increase they see in take home pay and deduct the sales tax but still come out ahead. You won’t be perpetual working poor if you are saving even $.20.00 a week for 10 years. It’s that simple. Many will be saving much such as the middle class.

          When people are putting money into savings accounts then banks don’t need Bernanke printing money therefore devaluing the dollar and causing inflation. Imagine that!

          Now, are you ready for this? When people are saving money they will be able to afford homes without CRA and Fannie/Freddie. That simple!

          When middle class are saving more of their payrolls taxes they now get they are saving more. Everybody saving means some day perhaps we could eliminate SS. Some day, not right away.

          When their are no capital gains and such millionaires and billionaires WILL invest more. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

          There’ so much more. The man is brilliant!

          Notice too the MSM never mentions he was working in rocket science along with other credentials.

          I beg you not to get distracted by shiny things like abortion. Watch the interview.

          His plan ends once and for all envy politicking and class warfare. Imagine that, problems solved! A uniquely qualified rocket scientist is telling us this isn’t rock science people.

          He’s saying we need to push the city back to the top of the hill and turn the lights on.

          Cain don’t need to go with hope and change for the failed policies of the past.

          Some things don’t need to be said. Cain’s plan is a very specific path to the future.

          I say show those OWS drones how it works and they’ll be “like wow man, capitalism dude! tell me more about this free market stuff”.

          Now a libertarian could say “well kid…did you know when goods are crossing borders then armies typically never do.

          Another libertarian might say “hey kid, did you know we could improve this with a ___-tax”.

          A neo-con may tell the kid “hey kid did you know that defense spending is actually in the Constitution”

          Cain’s plan is simple too. Military complex gets their money missile defense and such. It is in the Constitution and actually one only thing government should be taxing for. And define our enemies and stop sending them money! Cain will scale back EPA etc… other candidates will do, 9-9-9 also caps spending at % of GDP by default like one of Romney’s wonkish 59 plans will do.

          Lets turn the lights back on in our youth and put Cain in the WH with an undeniable mandate so that one day perhaps even Ron Paul could get elected because he wouldn’t have to explain the Constitution in 60 second soundbites with every answer.

          Watch the interview Cain don’t seem hostile to gay marriage. Perhaps in an environment of fairness semantics can be worked out but equal rights for all. 9-9-9 is a good start to treating people fairly and gets rid of the rabble rousers who use envy politicking to be in a position to shackle us and our economy.

          Link Cain MTP http://tinyurl.com/6eysdhw

          1. You mean we’ll never get a Gary Johnson/Ron Paul elected until first we get a Herman Cain?

            1. YES! YES! YES! YES!

              That’s it!

              Yes we Cain!

              1. C’mon libertarians I just PWNED all of you and Paulies too. Admit it. I’m not being cocky, its just that simple! 🙂

                Allow me please: A long while back as a younger man but old enough to be wise I was chatting with a liberaltarian woman……yada..yada..

                She says “you can’t say that since Plato already did”

                I informed her I never read Plato or any of the classics. She rolled her eyes thinking “MORON!” and I thought to myself: “self, I don’t think this woman realizes that when I follow her logic I can only come to the conclusion that she just told Plato to shut up because he never read Plato.

                It’s true! Follow the logic. My conclusions at the time were based on my life experiences of the time just like his were if we came to same conclusions without having read Plato and he was probably more avid reader than me at the time.

                Imagine a whole country filled with children and everybody with lights on critical thinking skills and educated about our Constitution and why we have to accept the fact Creator allows us freewill and to to deny it is to deny freewill itself.

              2. “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” – Ronald Reagan

                “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” – Ronald Reagan

                “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

                “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.” – Ronald Reagan

              3. My summary of Herman Cain presidency.

                Here’s my strategy on the economy and class warfare against it “We win they lose!”

                The second Reagan quote speaks for itself.

                The trouble with our liberals is not that they are ignorant: It’s just they don’t have critical thinking skills. Watch the video, the Hermanator had to explain the federal tax on top of state tax
                thing to Gregory three times and he still didn’t seem to get it.

                Our right to freewill given to us by Our Creator. It’s a provable theory with the scientific method. Test it. Even Jefferson could agree. Test it. “GodDammit!” Yep! God allows us freewill. A

                Anyone who denys the CONCEPT denys freewill itself! It’s true.

                One’s mans freedom fighter is another mans’s terrorist.

                True enough but you know how you tell the difference? Find out if they believe a creator allows freewill. That simple. A concept. Anyone who denies that concept is clearly not a freedom fighter because freedom requires freewill.

                1. PWNAGE! PWNAGE!

                  Jacket contact this man!

                  1. I told them I will haunt them until I turn them into hypocrites and they have to ban me. 🙂

                    I’d rather they help me and I will join them and turn the whole country into Reason.com

                    1. What a concept huh?

                      The one out of many Hermanators.


                      The many out of one Obamatrons.


                      Interesting times indeed!

                      We are already living in upside world with no common sense or critical thinking. Ask anyone, everyone would agree for different reasons. Many into one but different opinions as to who is right. I think Cain is correct so I will not allow Michelle Bacmann to turn it upside down because in a world that’s upside down we need to turn it rightside up again. And if you don’t believe in an actual Creator but at least believe the CONCEPT like Jefferson then we can all agree we need to actually start treating people fairly with 9-9-9 – and it’s just coincidence when Michelle Bachmann turns it upside she comes to bass-ackwards conclusions because we already know she….well..follow the logic when it comes to hers.

                    2. Yes its true. It’s so profound it’s like watching the movie Airplane. The astute even catch the satire in the credits. Read this thread again and again and yep. It’ll keep blowing your mind.

                    3. I am just a unique individual because I won the race amongst my peers, they lost. The ones pro-choicers say are all the same. Just sperms. All the same, treat them all the same. Don’t reward the winner.

                      Life isn’t tee ball. Especially when a country can be united around a Concept that a Creator allows freewill and to deny that fact is to deny freewill itself. Someone who would do that is not pro-choice – they are pro-death -follow the logic -because that’s what history tells us that marxist mentality that many come out of one which Marx wrote to dethrone Creator and destroy capitalism and that’s exactly what these people do whether they know it or not.

                      Not sure how anyone claiming to be a libertarian and all about individual rights could be for killing an individual. I think science and biology proves that the winner of the race is an individual indeed!

                      We really should trade abortion for gay marriage, its debatable in a civilized enlightened society that agrees about separation but also agrees with the CONCEPT and that half the country or more believe abortion not only violates just the concept.

                    4. Now lets just for one minute pretend there is a creator. Just humor me here.

                      What would piss a Creator who allows you to even deny his existence. What would piss him off? Would someone who by actions or words who believes the bizarre from one, many like Mao, Lenin, Castro, I won’t say what’s his name because I don’t want to give some progressive the Godwin out would the millions and millions of innocent life they took piss off more or less than the millions of innocent life he never got to judge.

                      Sheeeeeeeeeessh! Wouldn’t it suck if the next Plato or Jefferson was well…wasn’t rewarded the trophy with a chance to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness and win that pursuit to. In an environment that is 1950s style booming without all the racist bigoted, sexist shot of the time. Imagine that! The city on the top of the hill with the lights on.

                      And shouldn’t the religious be able to agree that Creator allows free freewill so gays deserve their right to pursue life, liberty and happiness in a society where we all agree in the concept that a Creator allows freewill.

                      I’d add that Jesus never said thump people over the head with the Bible either. Spread the Good News and move on, and God allows us to choose and in a secular country where we all believe in a concept so we keep church and state separated we could solve other problems more easily.

                      Its true! We should try it. Herman Cain provides the path. We’ll never be Utopia but we can forever be that city on the top of the hill with all the lights.

                    5. This stuff should go viral. I speak like Herman Cain without a teleprompter because I am a Hermanator.

                      The Obamatrons speak with talking points and smear because their creator tells them too -and he needs a teleprompter when he speaks. hahahahaaha!

                    6. Read what I put in this thread and get it to all the so called freedom fighters, and if they flunk the test no more of our money! Period! That’s how you define peace through strength and clarity. As far as the countries we broke already perhaps we could use this concept and convince them of it. I don’t know and nobody knows the consequences of pulling out or staying but I do know IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY where everybody is equal its more debatable if we all understand simple concepts. Like decisions have consequences.

                      Most IMPORTANT election of your lifetime.

                      MLK Jr’s dream of equality.


                      The dreams of Obama’s father.

                    7. One last thing to ponder.
                      Some people say the biggest trick the devil ever pulled off was making people believe he don’t exist. Debatable in a society that accepts the Concept therefore freewill.

                      What’s not debatable is the fact Utopia will never exist and every time its promised by one of these from one, many types who see the concept upside down you can look to history for a guide. Typically the citizens live in Hell at some point. And AGW skeptics will tell you the Creator concept deniers ie the warmist have made their lives Hell. NOT COINCIDENCE!

                      I’d say the biggest trick Karl Marx – the guy who’s object in life was to destroy our Creator concept therefore freewill therefore freedom theorefor capitalism. The biggest trick he ever pulled off was making people believe Utopia is even possible without anyone but a Creator who allows us freewill even to deny him. It seems it pisses him off if he exist if you deny the concept and this is how , good intentions lead to the road to Hell. You can’t forget the concept when passing policy with good intentions.

                      Read it all again and again. It’s true. Follow the logic. It’s self evident truth.

                      America will never be Utopia either but it can be a freer fairer society if we can all agree on the Concept which can’t be denied because even in doing so you prove it to be true with the scientific method.

                2. We should be considering that concept when handing down our decisions.

                3. Our Final Solution was just a shiny thing.

    3. Hot off the presses:

      “His sister, the Rev. Bernice King, reminded the crowd that just before her father’s assassination in 1968, he was mobilizing a poor people’s campaign to occupy the nation’s capital until the economic system changed.”


  18. Amazing blog, I had not thought of yet in the network occur.
    Material Medico

  19. Amazing blog, I had not thought of yet in the network occur.

  20. The statue is a minor disaster. Look at statues and pictures of Kim Il Sung or Mao zedong – they’re depicted as serene, heroic, or father like.

    Meanwhile the Chinese sculptor made MLK look like an enforcer from a cheap gangster movie. His arm is folded and stiff, while the statutes of the Great Fathers of communism have one arm held high in a gesture of leadership. Or they’re smiling at least.

    I suppose it’s a celebration of freedom of sort that artist known for sculpting commie figures was able to exercise his first amendment rights (and use creative license) to create a menacing sentinel out of a man who gave his life for civil rights, while apparently under ZERO pressure and propaganda from the governemnt to craft a monument that accurately represents and promotes the personality and ideals of one of the nation’s most iconic figures.

    Would you shoplift in nearby malls with MLK staring you down? I wouldn’t.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.