Martin Luther King Stood for Government Spending?
In their response to the Republican attempts to cut the budget, members of the Congressional Black Caucus have done a wonderful job of revealing their true motives. For example, Barbara Lee, Democratic Representative from the broke state of California, had this to say about the Republican efforts:
‘At a time when we should be remembering and uplifting the accomplishments and contributions of African Americans, to the history, culture, civil rights and economy of America, we are literally during this month debating steps that will severely undercut and undermine that legacy.’
I’m confused…what legacy is being undermined by cutting government spending? A lifetime of government subsidies? That’s not really the legacy that Rep. Lee is advocating, is it?
Lee also criticized Republicans for saying ‘so be it’ when asked their reaction to the idea that cuts to government spending might hurt U.S. job growth. ‘So be it,’ she repeated. “That’s not what the Civil Rights movement was about.’
Good grief. I wonder if Martin Luther King, Jr. knew his efforts were going to be “about” never-ending government subsidies for minorities? I doubt it, unless I missed that part of his “I Have A Dream” speech.
Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands), who led the debate, said the GOP cuts threaten to bring the U.S. back to a time when ‘America was not in her finest hour, a time when the poor, the rural and people of color were denied equal opportunities to education, healthcare, jobs with decent wages and protections, and the possibility of homeownership. We cannot and must not go back there.’
Yep, I’m thinking the same thing: We have representatives from the Virgin Islands? Also, what the hell is she talking about? How is reducing government spending depriving minorities of “equal opportunities to education, healthcare, jobs with decent wages and protections, and the possibility of homeownership?” The answer is: it doesn’t, unless one’s existence depends upon government hand-outs.
I always find the audacity of the left astonishing when discussing minorities. Why? Because they’re completely full of it. They argue for equality, while advocating for policies that stand for the proposition that one group of people is inherently unable to compete with another group. They assert their desire to elevate people, while vilifying those like Allen West and Herman Cain for their conservative beliefs. They ask that we emulate those who suffered for civil rights, while claiming that government spending is their legacy.
What’s the moral of the story? Simple: liberals are liberals before they are anything else. Their collective goal is to create as many victims as possible, and then manufacture an enemy for political gain. They use government programs to maintain these victims in perpetuity, while simultanously establishing the generosity (and supremacy) of the government. The goal of this is not to assist the downtrodden; it’s to obtain, and maintain, power.