Glenn Beck Should Stop Comparing Himself To Martin Luther King,Jr.!!

Since I am still seeking gainful employment,I haven't felt up to updating this blog.But,every now & then something irks me so much that I have no choice but to write a post about it.Today,it's Glenn Beck & his not so subtle comparisons of his "movement" to that of the great peacemaker,Martin Luther King,Jr.

I do not align myself with the views of most of Fox's media personalities.Despite that fact,I watch the network to gain differing perspectives on the troubling issues that plague the earth.Glenn Beck offers opinions that I don't agree with.That's why I watch his show occasionally.

I can't help but notice that he loves to compare his "9/12 movement" to the non-violent protests that Martin Luther King led.Even though he has absolutely nothing in common with Dr. Martin Luther King,Glenn Beck wants to align himself with greatness.The movement that Glenn Beck is driving is all about anger & aggression.A lot of folks in the "tea party movement" have shown us that they are ready to start a "revolution." And they seem like they are more in step with "by any means necessary" than they are by "turn the other cheek,brother."

And what does his movement really stand for? Is Glenn Beck fighting for all Americans to have the same rights as Martin Luther King did? The answer is a simple and resounding no!

Glenn Beck is constantly ranting about "social justice." Well,that's what Martin Luther King was fighting for during the civil rights movement.Glenn Beck is fighting to exclude people from ever obtaining any measure of "social justice." Beck chooses to ignore history & claims that all Americans have always worked hard to get what they want & deserve.Well,I guess that doesn't apply to the millions of slaves who worked hard & got nothing for it.

During the antebellum era, the majority of folks didn't want "social justice." Freeing the slaves fell under that category.Abolitionists were despised by those who were like Glenn Beck.The abolition movement & the civil rights movement were both about social justice.How come Glenn Beck doesn't want life to be even remotely fair for those who were disenfranchised from birth? Since its inception,America has not afforded everyone the same opportunities.There are still oppressors & those who have always been oppressed in this country.And anyone who denies that should come walk in my shoes for a day.

Whenever I tune in to his show,I come away with the impression that Glenn Beck is at war with anyone who is in need.In his world,everyone should be damned if they are not self-sufficient.This is a man who is fighting the government to keep the liberties that he feels are at stake.Martin Luther King fought to obtain the liberties that the Glenn Becks of the world have always enjoyed.There is a stark difference between the two.

So,I would love to tell Glenn Beck to stop comparing himself to Martin Luther King & Gandhi because you claim to lead a "non-violent movement." We all know that you love to incite violence with your words.Why else would you call Barack Obama a racist? When you tell your show's viewers that America is in serious peril,do you really believe that you are encouraging non-violence?

You,sir,are more like the insidious enemies of Martin Luther King,Jr.The ones who accused him of being a communist & tried their darnedest to bring him down.Because if Glenn Beck hates the idea of social justice,then tell me how he could liken himself to Dr.Martin Luther King for even a split second? Martin Luther King is a symbol of social justice. Glenn Beck is a symbol of social tyranny.

Here's more on social tyranny:

"John Stuart Mill, one of the foremost nineteenth-century spokesmen for liberalism, advocated Utilitarianism in ethics, i.e., the view that we should each act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Yet he was a champion of individual's rights, calling, among other things, for more power and freedom for women. In his treatise On Liberty he argues that in the past the danger had been that monarchs held power at the expense of the common people and the struggle was one of gaining liberty by limiting such governmental power.

But now that power has largely passed into the hands of the people at large through democratic forms of government, the danger is that the majority denies liberty to individuals, whether explicitly through laws, which he calls "acts of public authority," or more subtly through morals and social pressure, which he calls "collective opinion."(END OF FIRST EXCERPT)

"It was now perceived that such phrases as "self-government," and "the power of the people over themselves," do not express the true state of the case. The "people" who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised; and the "self-government" spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest.

The will of the people, moreover, practic-ally means the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this as against any other abuse of power.

The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulg-arly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting (3) persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant--society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it--its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself." (END OF SECOND EXCERPT)Read more here.

Here's more on Glenn Beck's outrageous comparison from News Corpse:

"When it suits his purpose, Beck will not hesitate to embrace Martin Luther King. Beck has even included King’s picture and words in the opening credits of his TV show (but no more). On the many times that Beck is accused of being racist he will cite King in an attempt to inoculate himself from the invariably correct criticisms. But that hasn’t prevented him from also calling King a radical and questioning whether there should be a day honoring him. And on the subject of social justice, which Beck is currently castigating as some sort of Da Vinci coded proxy for Marxism, King once said…

“[W]e will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.”

Contrast that with Beck’s twisted view on the matter. It begins with a warning that when you see the words social justice you should…

“Run, and don’t listen to anyone who is telling you differently. [...] It is a perversion of the Gospel.”

I’m not sure where Beck acquired his theological training. Perhaps it was when he was an alcoholic drug abuser. Or maybe it was after he sobered up and became a Mormon because, as he admits, if he didn’t his then-girlfriend wouldn’t sleep with him. In any case, he now considers himself so authoritative on spiritual matters that he, and only he, warrants your attention and observance.

The distinction between Beck and King is important because Beck has appropriated an anniversary that is cherished by Americans who revere King and his works. Beck is holding a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on the anniversary of King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, which was delivered at the same location. The dark irony of Beck pontificating on that platform, on that day, is purely revolting. As is the prospect of his all-white army of paranoids desecrating the historical significance of King’s oratory there almost half a century ago.

Beck demonstrated his commitment to his version of social justice when he appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show last week. The discussion turned to whether the government could regulate unhealthy behavior like excessive consumption of junk foods. Setting aside the fact that no one in government is proposing that, O’Reilly nevertheless asked Beck how he would deal with someone who had a heart attack due to such a lifestyle and who did not have insurance. Beck’s prescription? “Sucks to be him.”

Beck continued by saying that he would not pay for this person’s health care or treatment in an emergency room. O’Reilly, acting in the unfamiliar role as the voice of reason, told him that he was already paying for that. Whereupon Beck changed his tune and came out as an advocate of government regulation of personal behavior. Not just once, but three times:

“If you don’t want to work, or if you can’t work, well then you are on government assistance, well then I can now regulate your life.”

“If you are taking money. . .if you want to be a slave to the government, then they have every right.”

“So here is the deal, if you don’t have insurance and you need to take the government insurance, then the government has the right to regulate every aspect of your life. But leave the rest of us alone.”

To which O’Reilly responded, “I like that.”

There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s start with the cruel insensitivity of Beck’s initial response that it “sucks” to have a heart attack and that’s just too bad for you. Go away and die. That isn’t just a denunciation of social justice, it’s sociopathic."(END OF EXCERPT)Read the entire post here.


I rest my case!