[video=youtube_share;Bm54lXYsjfM]http://youtu.be/Bm54lXYsjfM[/video] Apparently, the Post couldn't risk praising MLK for being what he was, a leftist. Much too dangerous for readers to absorb. The corporate media never mentions that they turned against MLK when he spoke out against the Vietnam war and began supporting organized labor. They turned him into a hate-figure like Julian Assange, Edward Snowdan, Scott Ritter, Philip Agee, John Stockwell, and the list goes on.
That struck me as bizarre, too, especially coming from the Left-leaning Washington Post. However, there was one MLK quote in the article that was decidedly conservative. There are always going to be perils associated with putting complex people in a box, and Martin Luther King, Jr. is no exception.
Left-leaning? The same paper that accused Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren of being inconsiderate of the poor masses of the world because of their opposition to investor rights treaties (Free Trade Agreements):
You don't have to be a propaganda arm of the CPUSA, WWP or PSL to be Left-leaning, Horhey. Of course, it's all ridiculous. The only thing that the socialists masquerading as "progressives" in this country care about are power and control. To see them bickering over who is more "progressive" than the other is absurd. However, the author of the WaPo article did make a valid point. If you want to help the poor, paying the tuition of rich kids in Fairfax who want to go to William & Mary is not the way to go about it. Sanders and Warren are both frauds.
No, what matters is not that you agree with the reporter's opinion, but that it's simply not true. His reporting contradicts the Post's own polling data, which is what gives it a corporatist slant:
Equal rights is a lefty belief that is being embraced universally. The benefits of socialism used by the authoritarian as a lure to assimilate and used by a questioned government as a representation of communism. That's how pragmatic the situation of MLK before.
I agreed with the author that there are better and more direct ways of helping the poor than paying rich kids in Fairfax to attend William & Mary. Like I said before, I find this sanctimonious posturing and bickering amongst "progressives" absurd. As for the government assuming the function of redistributing income, I agree with Founding Father Samuel Adams on this matter: "The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional."
Raise the minimum wage and people will get off of entitlement programs. As for Founding Fathers, James Madison, "The Father of the U.S. Constitution," envisioned the U.S. as plutocracy: Media corporations are naturally supportive of this system since they and their advertisers spend millions of dollars a year on lobbying to produce policies favorable to themselves. It's all interconnected.
