MLK DAY JUST NOT RIGHT

It is time to spell out what is fundamentally wrong with Martin Luther King, Jr, Day. It is not the day it is supposed to be, or at least the day it was sold as. Before accusations of racism fly consider this: MLK is the only person, not counting Jesus Christ, who has his own birthday commemorated on the calendar. The only one. George Washington’s birthday, which used to be holiday, is now the bloodless and cardboard “Presidents Day”—as if it is wrong to recognize Washington alone and elevate him above Franklin Pierce, Benjamin Harrison, or Jimmy Carter. Lincoln’s day is gone. So too there are no holidays at all nodding to Jefferson, Madison, either Roosevelt or even Kennedy (who always seems to get included on lists of great presidents, for reasons that are never explained.) So what is the implication? that MLK is the most important person in US history? That following Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years, another holiday is desperately needed after two weeks? No. It is clearly and solely a bone thrown to blacks so they feel that something is theirs. And they should be insulted by this. It is, after all the mock-shock that follows whenever one points out that it is a “black” holiday, just that. It is National Patronize Black People Day with a wink and a nod to “civil rights” for all people, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Anyone who is white— because only white people get scolded for their use of language—knows that if they refer to MLK day as a black holiday, they will be subjected to public stocks, and probably an EEOC complaint, for doing so. “Dr” King, the Inquisitors will explain pedantically, fought for civil rights for all people. He was for truth, justice, open seating on public transport, and the Christian way. Well, OK. Maybe his movement was intended for other non-whites, as well. Although Hispanics don’t seem to see it that way. They want Cesar Chavez avenues and drives and days to institutionalize their awakening (not their liberation—that hasn’t happened yet. Non-whites must remain oppressed because the anti-oppression industry cannot hit the unemployment rates of the private, productive sector). And none of this has anything to do with white people’s civil rights. White people—specifically those who wrote the Constitution— didn’t even recognize the concept of civil rights in the way that “Dr” King and his associates were defining them. A “right” to vote? Not for my pale and freckled forefathers. And, as a slight digression, looking at the outcomes of universal suffrage it is very hard to sing its praises. Would a voter pool limited to responsible, serious-minded, and patriotic adults choose a Clinton or an Obama over either of their competitors? But anyway, the bottom line is that if the goal fo this day were really to commemorate civil rights, we would do so with a Civil Rights Day, not with any individual’s birthday. We don’t memmorialize Labor Day on the nativity of Eugene Debs, or Memorial Day as date when some particular Billy Yank who fell at Gettysburg entered the world. So why would September 9, or July 2 (the dates of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 respectively) not be chosen as the Big Days for the civil rights revolution? The Declaration of Independence was executed (kind of) on July 4. That’s the day we mark— not April 13th which happens to be Thomas Jefferson’s birthday. And Independence Day is what we call it. Not TJ Day.

The obvious conclusion is that the parades, speeches, and enormous bill to American taxpayers of all stripes and convictions are for the glorification of a certain man, not a bigger ideal, and that man simply does not deserves such elevation. He was flawed— and he flawed in ways quite relevant to his legacy. All humans are, of course, imperfect, but his imperfections rise a bit above the average— plagiarist, academic imposter, and serial adulterer pop right to mind. If you are thinking of the content of Martin's character, that is. If the good “doctor” were measured as he said he hoped others would be, he comes up rather short. Most other hero’s CV's do not include faked degrees, and most moral leaders who are exposed as King has been lose their moral authority. Swaggert and Bakker didn’t get passes on this stuff. Neither did Clinton, for that matter, and he was never addressed as “reverend”. The more you find out about Martin, the more it is like finding out Jesus had a group of rebellious rabbis and scribes behind him fudging his credentials, writing his sermons, and securing for him illicit creature comforts— like bacon and mayo sandwiches-- when he was off stage. And Jesus is, after all, one of the figures his devotees like to liken him to. And that does matter.

These things might not diminish his accomplishments at all, but they certainly argue against his personage being honored in the biggest way our country offers-- with a national holiday. Something that evidently none of the Founders or even the Great Emancipator himself rate.

It remains that the day is about him, not about the ideals. And MLK is the him is the chosen him in this case because he was black. Lyndon Johson does not get any credit, as Hilary found out in her public spanking. Neither do any other white folks who actually had more to do with advancing the cause of black equality— let alone equality in general-- than King did. So MLK Day is a black holiday. That is ok, I suppose, but it is a lot less inspiring as a myth, and not something any one need take particular heed of unless they are purposely searching for a personal hero who looks like themselves. That familiar objective of self-esteem building through constructed history. All the pure ideals that King represented are better represented by others. And, for many who are not black, by others with whom they can much more readily identify personally. So don’t look for any activity by me on MLK Day. I’m busy getting ready for March 15th. That is MY group's Civil Rights Day. It’s Andrew Jackson’s birthday. He was the first Scots-Irish American president, and he really, really advanced Scots-Irish rights in a prejudiced America that made Scots-Irish people move to the back of the country and settle in places like the Appalachian Mountains. Many of them are still there, living in poverty without housing projects or good public schools. They never did march on the Mall, or burn down cities, so they don’t have that much political clout. Believe it or not, I don’t think there is even a Scots-Irish Caucus in Congress. Of course Jackson was a very flawed man. Nasty and violent, a gambler a drinker, and a killer. He smoked, too. Still, for how important he was to popular democracy I’d like to see his birthday made a national holiday. But I guess since he made it all the way to be president, he’s probably disqualified. I suggest other groups in hyphenated America push for holidays for their heroes. I especially appeal to any groups' icon whose birthdays fall in April, June, or August. Those are months with noticeble holiday shortcomgs. There have to be some Asian, East Indian, Native American, Polish, or Greek icons who meet these modest criterion.

GO MASS-ES

Of course victory is invigorating. This is what the maquis must have felt like when they heard about Rommel getting dusted in the desert. But we still don’t have Allies at Anzio, or Il Duce swinging from a signpost. Let alone Normandy. But hey, maybe Massachusetts is signpost of progress, just like those were. Wish it didn’t feel a bit like Himmler marginalizing Goring—bad for them, but hard to see as all good for us. This said because there are some indications that the Esteemable Mr Brown may be a little stronger on not-so-liberal than on conservative credentials. But it is Massachusetts. The notorious Peoples’ Republic thereof, so anything to the right of CPUSA can be counted as a win.

So why did this happen? That is the key question as to what it will really mean. We don’t know. Obviously, a lot of people who usually reflexively vote for Democrats actually voted for a Republican. Obviously, too, people who can be swayed but, in that place anyway, usually vote Democratic voted the other way. Maybe there was at work an inverted version of Obamania involved, causing people to vote contrary to their basic instincts. In this case against their instinctive perception of liberalism as normalism; in Obama’s case overriding instinctive Americanist sensibility which usually puts the brakes on ballots for ideologically foreign candidates when it comes down to the wire (Henry Wallace, McGovern, Dean, Nader).
It’s too much to hope that Massachusetts is reddening in a meaningful way, but tactically this is a God-send. It really may mean the end of Obamacare, and more spending plans ending in "trillion”. It may even mean the Obama program generally is mortally wounded. But here is to hoping it means at least one thing that will be of benefit: This particular politburo occupying the capital will not hold in such blatant contempt the public’s wants and demands. Never has a majority, and only marginally one-third, of the public supported the so-called health care reform program. More were markedly against it. And yet the Democrarky in both houses were determined that the public will be damned. They were going to force this down the gullet of America no matter what— or at least as long as they thought they could get away with it. It becomes extra-hypocritical-funny when the institutional Dems complain that the three-fifths rule in the Senate frustrates the will of the majority— the majority of the Senate, that is. The majority of the public, on the other hand, could go skroo themselves if it weren’t for their protection by a minority of members.

One has to wonder at the soaring arrogance displayed by the liberal DC elite on this one. Up-to-date polls show that health care ranks way outside the Top 5, maybe even the Top 10, concerns of the public. The bill never had support from more people than opposed it. The Dem leadership was simply determined to force it through anyway, just to sate their own powermongering appetites, the people be damned. Till now. We can only hope that this stomp-down also crushes the economy-crippling cap-and-trade dreams that have even less support from a wakening people besieged by assaults on their freedom, their wallets, and their health.

BEYOND DISRESPECT

After nearly a year of the Vichy regime there is really no point in recounting just how bad things are. The country is beaten and occupied by a foreign power. Bad people are in positions of power and are doing bad things. Most things that are done are simply for the benefit of the ruling cell itself. The so-called health care reform is an exemplar. It succeeds at increasing the size and scope of the state immensely and pleases the regime's core supporters enough to aid in its regime self-perpetuation. Nothing else is accomplished; certainly not improved medical service. But a recent generic Christmas greeting did recall one of the few illuminating, if not exceedingly bright, spots of the year: Congressman Joe Wilson’s succinctly heartfelt spontaneous declaration at the Wizard, “You lie!”

Well, yes, yes he does. And regardless of the forum, that was really worth enunciating. Contained in those two monosyllabic words was possibly the most profound political statement since, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The reason is that what Mr. O and his minions lie about is not the typical lies of politics. Never mind the promises that bills will be posted in advance for the public to read on the internet, adn health care debates broadcast on CSPAN. Never mind that no lobbyists will be hired in the White House, that you can keep the insurance you have, health care reform will be deficit neutral—even positive for the debt, illegals won’t be covered, nor abortions funded by your money-- all are of the unremarkable species of lies that, while despicable, politicians tell hourly, and that the public stupidly buys wholesale. But the Obamians lie about who they are. They lie about their motives, their goals, their very reasons for being on the premises. It is not the lying means they employ for their ends you need fret about, but the lies about the ends themselves.

Failure to realize this emphasizes the recurrent and overarching theme-- the fatuousness of treating the Obamanation as if it were just another presidency. Administration #44. Again, it is not. If America is a country—the only country, in fact-- that was founded upon an idea, then it follows that there are ideas that are identifiably American ones and, thereby, ones that most definitely are not. There is plenty of room within the parameters of American ideology to argue over policies and preferences. Hamilton and Jefferson, Lincoln and Calhoun, Clay and Jackson, have produced sparks within the national tent since its erection. But the fights in the houses of power today are not over differing views of Americanism, but between ideals that are American and those that are something else. Ideologies and outlooks that are as foreign as divine kingship and as alien as bat worship are now being pursued as within the mainstream of the political spectrum.

Nationalizing one-sixth of the economy is not simply another take on American political philosophy any more than Islam is a different interpretation of Christianity. It is part of an entirely different tradition, that of socialism and communism, that was nowhere to be found in the minds or intentions of the most radicalized Framers. Criminalizing the failure to purchase a commercial product is even more bizarre, no better a fit than restating just one of the Decalogue as, “Thou shalt place all other gods before me”. Tweak that one little phrase and you have altered all altars into something radiating beyond the spectrum of visible light as seen by Western culture for a darn long time. Those writing the Constitution did not forget to include a whole second act regarding government responsibilities— as the Obama-voiced Theory Constitutional Asymmetry would have it. Neither did Adam Smith simply neglect a second volume in which he championed the command economy for the sake of completeness and balance. Any expanded role for government in everyday life does not complement or complete the ideal of America, but directly contradicts it. It really is that simple. What is frightening is that people can graduate from America’s most elite law schools—then teach constitutional law of all things— either without realizing this (many are, after all, just plain thick) or with an active contempt for what they have examined.

So the Constitution is a classically liberal document whose exegesis has been completed pirated by Marxists. Imagine seminaries run by a clergy of activist atheists. And the likes of the Little Nikitas of the current autocracy, the “red diaper” babies, the offspring of the Obamas, the Emanuels, the Podestas, and other fellow travelers of the Cold War fifth column, know exactly what they are about. So, we all pay the price for the shortcomings of an education and socialization system that fails to teach citizens to recognize wolves from big-toothed grandmas. A lot of otherwise reasonable Americans voted for this anti-Christ. Well, the obervation may have been out of place and short of the proper decorum, but its significance transcends politeness. Barack Hussein Obama is delivering the State of the Union address, and THAT…that is an insult to the presidency more grave than any tortured outcry of Mr Wilson’s.