Posted on 01/19/2009 12:37:49 PM PST by Natural Law
Obomber is trying to co-opt Lincoln...THE Republican...
Lincoln was, too. Hasn’t stopped whatshisname from making some pretty ridiculous claims.
Do any of you have a link to a reputable source showing that King was a Republican? I have read most of his works and don’t recall any place where he said that he was a Republican directly.
He may have voted Republican to avoid voting for racist Dems. Is that all we have?
“Martin Luther King was a Republican”
Now THAT is something you’ll hardly ever hear these days.
It is atrocious how the Democratic Party has used many of the black population for their own gain. They’ve encouraged abortions in their communities and given them handouts to keep them in poverty. It is despicable! And then, they have the audacity to tell them that if they don’t vote Democrat, they are “betraying their race.”
Funny, how the Republican Party was the one who originally freed them from slavery and it was the Republicans who originally fought for their rights. Now, the Democrats have anointed themselves as the “party of the minorities,” and have been re-writing history to fit their ideology.
I think MLK would be appalled at what Obama stands for and at what has been happening to the black population.
And his granddaughter believes that the civil rights struggle won’t be over until abortion is outlawed.
Check this out:
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why+MLK+was+a+Republican
The important thing in the postiong is Republicanism, not MLK.
I love listening to the likes of John Lewis (D-GA) and the Race Hustlers spin this wonderful fact out of control...
All great black people in American history Republican. To think that MLK would even be allowed to register in the political party that didn't want him to vote, lynched blacks, sicced dogs on him and wouldn't permit him to drink from the same water faucets as they used is preposterous.
MLK = GOP
How many times has this been debunked ? He supported big government and Democrat Presidential candidates from 1960 onwards.
Debunked.
It is not disputed that Martin Luther King embraced the principles of Republicanism, that is individual rights over majority rule.
Name a Republican presidential nominee he voted for after Eisenhower.
Republicanism is not vested only in the office of the President or in the GOP.
I don’t think a lot of FReepers, or most folks in general, have a clue as to his true political ideology. Had he not been martyred, which was his wish, he’d have been standing arm-in-arm with the far-left race-baiting hucksters of today. He led his own people into the bondage of big government, a fate for which even the most rabid White Supremacist couldn’t have dreamed of for the sheer destructiveness to the Black family & culture.
Unless you consider the wholehearted embrace of Socialism to be a principle we should admire, and to associate it with Republicans, I am very concerned about. Sadly, the more I learned about the man, the less attractive a person and leader he appeared to be.
He would’ve been eligible to vote beginning in 1950 when he turned 21. I haven’t been able to pin down if he himself ever cast a vote for Eisenhower, or if he indeed voted for Stevenson in ‘52 & ‘56. His father was a self-declared Republican, as the majority of Southern Blacks were until the 1960s, but he switched from Nixon to JFK during the election season and never went back. Even supported the race-baiting Jimmy Carter (who openly ran as a race-baiter in the 1970 Democrat primary, mocking ex-Gov. Carl Sanders, his opponent, for “shaking hands” with Black basketball players. Sanders was a racial moderate). It’s very hard to give these folks any credibility when they put the narcotic of Socialist big government ahead of rejecting racist, anti-Semite politicians like Carter.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, we can only deal with the image and civil rights icon created over the last 40 years. My post was not about MLK, but about recapturing the issue of individual rights, as opposed to majority rule democracy, as the keystone and definition of Republicanism.
It’s the imagery that has raised him to Sainthood status, for which he is not deserving of, that needs to be closely scrutinized. I think his entire record needs to be revisited to see him for the man that he was, someone seeking celebrity status and the limelight, someone who put all of that ahead of family. In his zeal to seek martyrdom, he inflicted profound damage upon his own children, none of whom have apparently been able to recover from (none of his adult children have even been able to have families of their own, a very sad spectacle). I think it is even wrong to have a national holiday named for him, especially when we ignore untold numbers of people that made very real contributions themselves, without the hypocrisy and destructiveness of this individual.
The imagery is what it is. Even if you could muster the resources to counter the layer upon layer of positive press and propaganda in the end it would only serve to make you and your fellow conservatives look mean spirited and racially biased. My course of action is to ride the horse we have been given and link MLK's dream to the principles of Republicanism and show the dangers of majority rule and of trusting the Democrats who promote it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.