Was M.L. King Jr. a Republican, an NRA member, and against abortion?
No one can say for sure what was in Dr. King’s mind and like most of us, he found fault with both parties.To suggest his “cautious optimism” for Kennedy and Johnson meant he leaned Democratic is to suggest the prevalent Democrat resistance to the, Republican advanced, Civil Rights act of 1964 went entirely unnoticed by Dr. King. A suggestion I find ludicrous.In public, Dr. King often said he wasn’t a politician, or affiliated with a particular party. But it would not require much of a sweat to argue in private he viewed the Civil Rights act as a step in the right direction and it was being pushed (against Democrat resistance) by the Republican party.The majority of African Americans switched from the Republican party shortly after FDR’s New Deal, and despite the provisions in it that excluded most blacks, most remained loyal.So, it could be argued that Dr. King was, in fact, the consummate politician. Publically he remained party-neutral (because an outsider would be viewed more critically? or) because it was his desire to change hearts and minds, rather than to chat with those who agreed with him.Dr. King grew up in (Democrat-dominated) Atlanta, not far behind the (Alabama) front lines of the “battle of racism”. Immersed in the Democrat-created KKK and Jim Crow laws, he would have been intimately familiar with the Democrat history of extreme racism.You tell me, would he have been a Democrat? Or would he have publicly maintained a facade of neutrality while identifying, as his niece insists, with Republicans?As for the NRA, I have no idea. It seems logical that if he WAS a member, the NRA would go to great lengths to publicize that.Abortion? Again, the times were different. Planned Parenthood (in it’s earlier days) began life as a Margaret Sanger eugenics movement, to eliminate the genetically “undesirable blacks”. At the time, Planned Parenthood touted “family planning”. And Sanger was not widely recognized as the hideous racist she was revealed to be. Would Dr. King have opposed abortion? I don’t know. Given his support of family (and Christian) values, it seems more likely than not.
What were the major successes and failures of George Bush and Bill Clinton in the 1990s?
George Bush’s major successes: (1) ending the first Persian Gulf War without getting bogged down in Iraq; (2) signing the Americans with Disabilities Act; (3) negotiating and signing the START I treaty effectively ending the cold war; (4) negotiating NAFTA; (5) putting David Souter on the Supreme Court; (6) resigning publicly from the National Rifle Association to protest the NRA’s anti-law enforcement language.George Bush’s major failures: (1) putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court; (2) doing too little to alleviate the effects of the 1991–92 recession; (3) choosing Dan Quayle as his vice president not once but twice; (4) hiring Lee Atwater as his campaign manager. Atwater (symbolically) birthed the loathsome Karl Rove. Better late than never, Atwater got religion on his deathbed and apologized to the people he had smeared; Rove appears to have no conscience.Bill Clinton’s major successes: (1) putting Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court; (2) signing NAFTA; (3) helping to end the Bosnian civil war; (4) signing the Family and Medical Leave Act; (5) surviving impeachment; (6) leaving office with a budget surplus.Bill Clinton’s major failures: (1) the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which paved the way for George W. Bush to become president; (2) the health care debacle, which led voters in the 1994 midterm election to give control of Congress to the Republicans; (3) Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; (4) partial repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act; (5) the decision to not intervene in the Rwandan genocide.
Why is this year's NRA convention a gun-free zone?
Where did you get the idea that the NRA convention is a gun free zone. MSNBC, maybe? That would be unfortunate because they article they wrote was something Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of. There is also an on point article from CBS News How to lie by telling the truth you may be interested in.The convention is not a gun free zone is it.Attendees can carry, but have to be mindful of local laws.The displays are inactivated weapons.Did the article ask why?Did they ask about the event’s liability insurance carrier’s requirements for for the event?Did they ask about vendor business requirements.Did they note that all sales will be finalized though a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer (background check, waiting period, etc.) near the customerDid they ask the entertainers about their requirements for a gun free zone at their performances?Please be mindful of the source of your data and be skeptical. It is your right to question everything and obtain your data to hold your opinions. Please beware of folks like this man:Kristallnacht This is Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda. He was a very nasty Nazi official and order such things as the “Night of Broken Glass” or Kristallnacht. He might have been bent, but he was a brilliant propagandist and there are some of his principles used in the present:The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.Regards
Why do we only have two major political parties in America? Would it be beneficial to have additional parties join the political spectrum in America?
Why do we only have two major political parties in America?The basic answer is That is how the cookie crumbled.The long answer is two parties are cheaper to buy than three. For almost all of US history leading political parties have been controlled at the national by loosely aligned business influences.The sole years of exception are the national Democratic Party in the years 1930 to 1936, when there was real grassroots power and influence in the Democratic Party at the federal level.Two parties creates, at least for stupid and incompetent thinkers, a forced choice based on the “wasted vote” paradigm that is not entirely accurate in the sense that voting for a third party might not elect a third party candidate, but it damn sure can defeat one of the two major party candidates. (see, President Gore and Bush 41 - second term)Over time both parties worked together to pass laws that make the process unreasonably difficult for third parties to get candidates on ballots. Add to the legal hurdles the jerrymandering into single party districts of the period since 1990, and it becomes clear that the corporationsm, wealthy individuals and unions controlling the two major parties continue to maximize efforts to exclude a third party, thereby locking in control of US government and most state and local governments by the raw power of concentrated money.Would it be beneficial to have additional parties join the political spectrum in America?Within five years of a third party gaining thirty seats in the house and five seats in the senate, the US will have single payer national health care AND trade treaties will be reciprocal, rather than giveaways forcing US taxpayers to subsidize growth in other nations.Not to mention, that even a small third party with the federal representation noted above will cause frequent direct challenges to corporate control of federal tax policies.