Skip to comments.Why did the Rev. Al Sharpton oppose Beck's rally?
Posted on 09/01/2010 3:20:56 AM PDT by Scanian
As expected, Glenn Beck's 8/28 "Restoring Honor" rally sent the leftist media and their spokespeople into a state of frenzied incoherence. The rally was framed as "controversial," before a single word was uttered. The rally had to be a racist event because it was scheduled at the Lincoln Memorial on the 47th anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech.
Among the far-left critics, the Rev. Al Sharpton provides a clear window into leftist thinking on the matter. According to Sharpton, the rally was a "distortion" of King's speech because conservatives like Beck really don't understand what King's speech was about.
You see, King was an advocate for federal involvement in race issues and inasmuch as Beck and conservatives are for smaller federal government, their position is antithetical to King's march.
After the media narrative had been set, that Beck's rally was set to be a bigoted, racist event, Sharpton told Keith Olberman that he didn't even have to "get to race," to show that Beck and current conservatives "are against the concept of what [MLK] was about in '63."
In other words, Sharpton didn't have to directly call Beck a "racist;" the fact that he's against big federal government proves that he's a racist.
Sharpton referred to Beck's event as an anti-government rally advocating states' rights. On C-SPAN, the misguided reverend went so far as to say that:
The structural breakdown of a strong national government, which is what they're calling for, is something that does not serve the interests of the nation and it's something that Dr. King and others fought against . . . .
It is ironic to me that they come on the day of a speech where Dr. King appealed for a strong government to protect civil rights and they're going to the site of Abraham Lincoln who saved the union against the state rebellion . . . .
I think I can safely speak for conservatives and Tea Party members everywhere in saying that conservatives are not calling for the "structural breakdown of a strong national government." Conservatives are calling for the return of the federal government to the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution. We currently have a structural breakdown caused by the federal government exceeding its constitutional limits.
Conservatives actually want a "strong national government" in the short-list of areas delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
Turns out that enforcing the protections of the Civil War (Reconstruction) Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th), comes under the full purview of the federal government. In other words, preventing racial discrimination is an area in which the federal government actually has jurisdiction. Last time I checked, blacks currently enjoy equal protection under law. But if the unequal treatment of blacks suddenly breaks out in a random state, conservatives believe in a strong national government to protect constitutional rights.
I tend to think Sharpton is smart enough to know what conservatives are actually calling for: A limited federal government based on the Constitution. That means a strong federal government in the areas delegated to the central government. The flip side means no federal involvement in areas reserved to the states and the people (like general affairs of healthcare, education, religious expression, etc.).
But the Sharptons of the Left are also smart enough to know that liberal causes are advanced via the power of the federal government. Constitutional jurisdiction is not an issue of concern for liberals.
It's easier to cry "racist" in the furtherance of liberal policy through federal demagoguery than to have an honest, respectful debate on the constitutional role of the federal government.
Honest, respectful debate?
There’s no debate at all. I’ve never heard one liberal, anywhere, rebut or try to rebut a single point made by Beck.
They never answer his arguments. They only make insinuations and accusations. That’s all they do. All of them.
"For You are not a God enjoying wickedness; nor shall evil live with You. The boasters shall not set themselves before Your eyes. You hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy those speaking lies; Jehovah will despise the man of blood and deceit."
Psalm 5: 4-6
He opposed it because he thinks that he is the rightful owner and heir of the moral righteousness of Dr Martin Luther King. He is furious that Beck, a White Cracker, would have a rally and relate to the faith of King. Sharpton wants it all for himself. However Sharpton has none of the moral righteousness of King.
All anyone needs to do to understand Sharpton’s motives is to investigate how he gained prominence in the first place.
My opinion is that Sharpton opposed the Restoring Honor rally because it promoted faith in God, not faith in government or faith in Al Sharpton. Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel, et al, have made a ton of money by screaming “racism”. Beck poked a hole in their balloon without mentioning them by name.
After his deplorable Twana Brawley horse pooh, how can anyone take this race huslter seriously about ANYTHING?
Because sharpless is a liar, racist, anti American rabble rousing welfare pimp.
Boy did he ever.
This rally while it was truly about faith, etc etc, exposed the other side for what they truly were. They thought "we" were coming to Washington to destroy them, they destroyed themselves, because their is no "their their" on their inside. What they said and the way they behaved said it all.
More interesting is the pissing match via not even acknowledging what Glenn did by Levin and Hannity. It is time for them to buy the long nose red front engine Ferrari and Viagra if they are feeling so inadequate.
I may regret saying this, but I am beginning to think some of our biggest talkers maybe a bunch of phonies. Rush noted we will never get a flat tax because of the power structure and it's unwillingness to give up the power of the tax code. If so Rush, Hannity and Levin are just cheer-leading for our "side", and do not see that by the people making the choices (aka the tea party candidates, not RNC dolts) that it is possible, and are just looking to cut the best deal like a Bob Michael did the old GOP minority leader. We will not accept that it can't be done Rush, you of all people by your career tell us anything is possible.
Glenn, Rich Santelli with his Tea Party comment and all of you out their have spoken, the latest example is Murkowski getting the boot.
We want to get back to the Constitutional limits of Federalism, like this article notes. But I don't think Hannity, Levin, and Rush truly get the Tea Parties and what Glenn is doing and I think it scares the crap out of them. Their meal ticket in some ways goes away if we disassemble the Federal Leviathan, they can't pound the us vs. them every day. Maybe it is jealousy because Glenn I think more than anybody has got people (like me) off their duff reading and volunteering. Even more so I swear Glenn has Mil-spec strategist on his team plotting for victory, or he has mastered Sun Tzu's teachings. Because unlike the other talkers, he has taken them on in "battle" and outmaneuvered them and has won IMHO and no one even see's the battle or that it is over as well as still going on....
The other guys never wanted or considered how to take it to the level Glenn has. Maybe to them it is just a job, I get the impression for Glenn t is truly about saving the nation he loves.
One of them love the plantation the other doesn’t.
I completely agree with you. I’ve watched Beck for several years, and often find I can’t figure out what he’s doing or what he’s getting at until 3-6 months later.
At that time it becomes clear that a) he predicted things would go down exactly as they did and b) he had a strategy that he started to implement long before it became clear to the rest of us why it would be needed or why it would work.
I think that if ever there was a man doing EXACTLY what he was born to do it’s Beck. And despite his AD&D, his sometime hastiness and hyperbole, and his weeping, I can’t help but think he is sincere and that his words and actions are being directed by a Power far larger than us (and I don’t mean George Soros LOL).
Seriously, he trades on his fame, and that's only worth his name recognition. If he's not in the headlines every couple of months his "power" begins to fade, and then he is not as bankable - can't pull down big fees for appearances, contributions to do, well, whatever it is he does etc. The man is a fame-whore, that's all.
Al Sharpton hates any kind of “civil” movement that actually brings people together. It’s bad for his business. His meal ticket is racial strife, followed by class warfare, followed by marxist divisiveness.
It's people like @l $h@rpton and Je$$e J@ck$on that makes me wish the slave owners would have had more kids and also hired the Indians to pick their cotton.
Sharpie was trying to balance too much Honor with his own Dishonor.
He’s opposed to it because if it is ever perceived that there is racial harmony it ends his gig. He, Jackson, and others have to keep up the perception that whitey is against the blacks and the only way that could be overcome is by uniting with the black leaders such as himself who will one day lead them to the promised land.
All of this eminates from the potential for public apathy of the ‘movement of 1964’ and the possibility that Sharpton and his fellow ‘revvvv-runds’ might have to find a REAL job. They’ve been living on MLK’s coat tails for 50 years. They’re EXACTLY like the U.S. Congress - it’s all about money and power.
Sharpton has made a business out of race victimization.
Just yesterday Rangel said, “All of you remember that this fight is never, never going to end.”
I thought that a very revealing statement. It doesn’t matter there is a black president; it wouldn’t matter if blacks live just as well and there wasn’t a drop of bias against them anywhere. It’s never going to end because race baiters like Charlie and Al can’t conceive of an existance where they aren’t “special”.
They are going to milk others for everything they can; it’s a cultural way of life and they have no intention of ever letting go of their victimhood.
And when people like Beck come out and talk about goodness and unity and forgiveness and love, it is more threatening to them than a hundred lynchings.
I get your concerns.
Hannity is no Beck. Rush could draw 10 million to DC but he will not.He has defined his role as a voice of reason speaking privately and personally to his listener.Levin has the depth, the tongue and the vision. He does not, however, have the desire to lead people.
Beck’s passion connects. He is not afraid to be sappy. Sarah and Glen speak a language that resonates in the hearts of Americans.
I have learn conservatism from Rush. I have learned about the rock solid principles of American tradition and its great leaders from Beck.
We are seeing the maturation of a political movement through the refinement of its spokesmen. Each is a different branch with unique abilities.
Nothing on the right is comparable to the depth of diversity, character and intellect of our conservative movement. The time of leftist thought is long past. Their leaders speak with hollow voices long emptied of truth. They are the dregs of a once powerful movement that saw 2/3 of the world’s population living under the sway of collectivist thought.
We can and should respect our men and women who communicate our vision. They each bring different gifts to this struggle. We will prevail if we do not pit ouselves against each other.
It’s what Sharpston does for a living. Beats getting a real job.
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.