Progressive Oct. 2 March Must Be About Jobs

Now that we are a week removed from the march on Washington organized by the self-named rodeo clown, Glenn Beck, it’s clear that the event was nothing more than an exercise in ego worship. It’s still unclear if the event was about the troops, restoring the honor of America — whatever that is defined as — an effort to reclaim the civil rights movement, which I’m still laughing at, or a tent revival intended to move Americans closer to God.

So many conflicting agendas and purposes left nothing more than a headache. Now that conservatives had their shot, Oct. 2 represents an opportunity for progressives to come to the nation’s capital and rally their faithful.

Four months ago, one of the major participants called to alert me of the event and to give me the purpose. After listening to a litany of reasons for the march, as well as the various participants, I couldn’t help but be as blunt as possible: “What in the hell is the agenda? A 25-point plan?”

It’s impossible to count the number of marches, rallies and calls to action that I’ve covered in my 18 years as a professional journalist. And with all certainty, I can tell you that the ones that failed miserably are those with so many reasons given that no one was able to take that mass action of civil disobedience and apply it to legislative action. It’s not interesting at all to see folks who focus on meeting, talking and then dispersing. For me, it should be about meeting, mobilizing and acting.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech is hailed as one of the all-time greats in the history of the world, yet without the subsequent Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, those words spoken at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom would have been just another speech. The forces behind the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom planned it as a way to pressure Congress and the Kennedy administration to pass a strong civil rights bill.

What folks seem to forget is that what happens on Saturday at the rally is immaterial; it’s what happens on Monday, then Tuesday, then Wednesday, and so on, that really makes the difference.

So, on Saturday, Oct. 2, a number of progressive organizations will rally in Washington, D.C. Frankly, I’m uninterested in hearing from 40 different speakers talking about 40 different things. The centerpiece of the rally — essentially funded by labor organizations — should be to pressure Congress to get moving on a massive jobs bill that supporters say is designed to help small businesses.

The bill that is getting the most attention is the Local Jobs for America Act, which is sponsored by Rep.
George Miller, D-Ga., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. According to supporters, the bill will save or create 1 million public and private sector jobs over the next two years, including teachers, firefighters and police officers.

President Barack Obama has constantly chided top Republicans for blocking the bill from moving forward, saying it will provide money for small businesses to borrow, as well as extend tax credits for them.

“It is paid for,” the president said Friday. “It will not add one dime to our deficit.”

His push for the bill came on the same day the Department of Labor says the unemployment rate rose to 9.6 percent, with the loss of 54,000 jobs, largely due to seasonal Census jobs ending. The private sector added 67,000 jobs last month.

On Wednesday, I talked to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on my segment of the Tom Joyner Morning Show. Steele said the jobs bill will only be a further burden to small businesses.

“I agree it sounds great on the headline on top of the newspaper, but the reality of it is, look at the bill and does it do for small businesses what small businesses need to have done,” Steele said.

He added: “How much credit and capital is made accessible to them?” And Steele questioned the regulatory burdens small businesses will have to face, namely with health care.

Those are legitimate questions that deserve a hearing. But preventing even a real discussion from moving forward makes no sense. If Republicans and Democrats both say they want the economy to grow and prosper, then put all of your cards on the table and let’s see what you’ve got. Saying no isn’t a plan of action.

Progressives are standing around and spending precious time complaining about the tea party and how they are mobilizing their people. Well, shut up and get to work.

And you can do that by helping America get back to work. The last thing we need is another march for the sake of marching. Instead, we need to see folks plan marches that have a real benefit other than to give them face time on the camera. With our economy still sluggish, we need folks on both sides of the aisle focused on growing our economy and making it healthy.

Over the next month, let’s see what progressives have planned for Oct. 2. But I’ll go ahead and say it right now: If there is no plan of action to mobilize supporters of the event to put maximize pressure on Congress to pass a much-needed jobs bill, then they are wasting their time. And yours.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sphere: Related Content

TJMS: Roland Martin Takes On Glenn Beck And The Restoring Honor Rally

Roland Martin discusses Glenn Beck, the “self-professed rodeo clown” and the Restoring Honor Rally that took place on Saturday August 28 2010.

After watching mainstream media treat the rally as if it was some kind of massive movement and call Beck the an intriguing person of the week, Roland decided to put what took place on Saturday into perspective.

Listen to Roland Martin’s analysis of the entire weekend starting with Beck’s interview on Friday with Joe Madison.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Audio Download

Sphere: Related Content

King’s ‘Dream’ was a radical economic equality message

By Roland S. Martin

Very few things will make my skin crawl more than listening to someone totally misrepresent the famous “I Have A Dream” speech the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave on Aug. 28, 1963.

It’s clear that far too many people haven’t bothered to actually read or listen to the speech. Instead, folks – especially those who likely would have branded King a communist, socialist, Marxist or a racial hell-bent on destroying America – love to tout Dr. King’s “content of character” line in order to push back against a variety of issues, especially affirmative action.

Just today, I saw a press release from Project 21, a coalition of black conservatives, suggesting that a rally planned Saturday by a radio talk show host and Fox News personality is akin to the 1963 march.

Coby Dillard, a member of Project 21, is quoted as saying, “”The dream of Dr. King — that every person be judged by their character rather than their color — is one of the tenets that makes our nation honorable in the minds of people around the world. Dr. King’s legacy is a gift to us all, and no one person or organization holds claim to his work and his message. I can think of no better way to honor him by renewing our shared commitment to uphold those principles that have held our country together throughout history.”

It’s clear that Dillard, and so many others, haven’t read a history book or other publications surrounding the march, and instead, love to continue to spread falsehoods, misrepresentations and outright fabrications stemming from the Washington, D.C. march.

First, we need to stop calling it the March on Washington. It was officially called the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. If you leave off the “Jobs and Freedom” part, it sounds like black folks just went for a walk that day. Upset with the lack of economic opportunities for blacks at the time, as well as the voting rights injustices, the organizers wanted to put pressure on Congress and the President John F. Kennedy administration to put their muscle behind a comprehensive civil rights bill.

No, the 1963 march had nothing to do with some hokey values espoused by a radio/TV windbag. It was a day to assemble a mass of people to represent a show of strength, and to get leaders in Washington, D.C. to listen to the urgent need taking place across the country.

Second, we continue to misrepresent Dr. King’s speech as the “I Have a Dream” speech.

As CNN’s Soledad O’Brien reported in the special, “MLK Papers: Words That Changed a Nation,” the speech was never called that. It was actually titled “Normalcy – Never Again.” In fact, the “I Have A Dream” portion, which represents the bottom third of it, wasn’t in the original text.

As Soledad reported, Dr. King often gave variations of the “Dream” portion of the speech, and on that day, he was encouraged by gospel great Mahalia Jackson to tell the audience about his “dream.”

There is no doubt that his soaring oratory about the need for racial harmony continues to send chills down our spines today, but if we as a country get so excited and wrapped up in the “dream” sequence, we forget the economic nightmare Dr. King painted in the top two-thirds of the speech. When I give speeches, I often tell folks the “I Have A Dream” portion is the “hoop” part, which is when the pastor begins sing, scream and shout when he/she has finished the sermon. But the real measure of a sermon is the scripture, which serves as the thesis of the sermon.

So let’s get to the meat – or the purpose – of Dr. King’s 1963 speech.

At the top he lays out the vision of slaves being freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, yet 100 years later, “One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.”

Then he makes clear that the purpose of going to the Lincoln Memorial is to “dramatize a shameful condition.”

“In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check,” Dr. King said. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

“This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check, which has come back, marked ‘insufficient funds.’

“But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”

King then began to talk about the “fierce urgency of now,” laying out the treacherous conditions upon which Black people lived in, and having to deal with violence and the trampling upon their rights.

He laid bare the despair of not being able to stay in hotel rooms; having to drink out of segregated water fountains; and the lack of voting rights.

Then King launches into the portion about his “Dream.”

Folks, the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream wasn’t about getting along. It was about every man and woman being afforded equal rights, and an opportunity to find a job, raise their family and not have to suffer from policy brutality. His speech wasn’t partisan or political; it was prophetic and was about prosperity.

How is it relevant today? If anyone wants to model that march, then stop with the ego driven nonsense and focus on pushing Congress to enact a jobs bill so Americans can work. Tell Democrats and Republicans to stop playing footsy with lobbyists and looking out for Wall Streets interests. Tell leaders in Washington, D.C. to give a damn about the poor of this country, from the hills of West Virginia to the dusty roads in Alabama. Tell some Republicans to stop their shameful condemnations of Americans who can’t find a job.

For the nearly 250,000 who gathered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on Aug. 28, 1963, it wasn’t about ego, it was about results. There was no partisan agenda; it was one where whites and Blacks refused to stand idly by and watch Black Americans denied an opportunity to thrive in this country. In the final five years of his life, Dr. King fought for equal pay for sanitation workers in Memphis, and was planning a Poor Peoples Campaign for DC, to highlight the economic injustices.

Please, take the time to go and read or listen to the speech. Understand the context. Examine the overall mission. And don’t try to pimp and pervert Dr. King’s prophetic word so you can score some political points.

And that goes for a charlatan, even if they have a TV or radio show, who seeks to align themselves with Dr. King’s momentous and radical speech 47 years ago.

Sphere: Related Content

I Love Jesus, the Constitution and Can Support the Building of a Muslim Mosque

“My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”

When those words were spoken on July 25, 1974, they were eloquently put by an outstanding woman and fellow Texan, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. She was a member of the House Judiciary Committee investigating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

And as I have listened and watched the stunning debate over the potential location of a Muslim community center and mosque two blocks away from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, Jordan’s precise words keep coming to mind.

In the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 attacks, many Americans felt it was critical for the United States to not the let the terrorists — al-Qaida — win by taking from us what we succeeded in getting from the British between 1775 and 1783: our freedom and democracy.

Yet in our zeal to fight terrorism worldwide, we have chipped away at our precious rights, willing to surrender hard fought civil liberties under the guise of protecting ourselves from terrorists at home and abroad. And we stand today, a nation embroiled in a local zoning dispute over the possible building of a 13-story Muslim cultural center that will house a mosque, a theatre and other amenities.

It has been described as the “Ground Zero Mosque,” which is ridiculous considering it will be two blocks away from the site of the fallen World Trade Center towers. Yet what has been fascinating and demoralizing to watch is the clear and unmistakable religious bigotry that has taken over this conversation. Critics of the project contend that they are not trampling our precious constitutional rights of religious freedom by opposing the project. They contend that it is simply in bad taste to build it so close to ground zero, and that Americans are far too emotional about issue.

Other words really come to mind. Irrational. Hysterical. Intolerant. Hypocritical.

Over the last several years, we have witnessed Americans troops shedding blood on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for American liberty and values. We hold ourselves up with self-righteousness as the paragon of democracy and freedom, yet we are quick to stifle the freedom of others we simply don’t agree with.

A lot of the hateful rhetoric spewing out of talk radio, on blogs and on mainstream TV stems from a deep-seated mistrust, hatred and dislike of anyone practicing Islam. In our politically correct way, we say that we respect Muslims who aren’t intent on launching a jihad, but the venom evident in the words of many shows that not to be true. As James Carville debated this issue on CNN with Bill Bennett, Carville talked about his Muslim friends being sickened by this, only to see Bennett demand if they publicly repudiated the Muslims involved in 9/11 and terrorism.

Is that what we’ve come to? We willingly want to demand to see IDs of Hispanic-looking folks who might be here illegally, but we also want any American Muslim to prove their patriotism by denouncing any and every crazed and deranged Muslim in the world who seeks to do us harm? Never mind that we have Muslims fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — proving themselves to be worthy Americans who are on “our side.”

The pain and heartache that was created on 9/11 was unbearable for many Americans.

The nation was traumatized, shocked and paralyzed by the brazen acts caused by the bastards who didn’t swear allegiance to peace, but instead to a murderous man named Osama bin Laden and a loose-knit terror network named al-Qaida.

For some reasons, Republicans have lost sight of the fact that even President George W. Bush made clear that America hasn’t been at war with Islam. And clearly some Democrats are so afraid to stand up for the U.S. Constitution that they are about as weak as a wet sheet of paper.

Now instead of joining hands with fellow Americans, including Muslim Americans, our deep-seated hatred of Muslims is calling us to detest this community center and mosque.

As the drama has unfolded with rapid speed over the last several days, I’ve tried to understand how a nation so willingly to pronounce our “American values” across the world could so easily forget that the early American settlers left a nation to escape religious persecution. Our Founding Fathers could have easily created a national religion. But they had the foresight to see into the future and allow this to be a land where anyone could choose, or not choose, to practice their religion freely.

Years ago while interning at the Houston Defender, I remember writing an editorial about a Texas ACLU lawyer and member of the NAACP defending a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, who was being ordered to turn over membership roles of the group. No matter how much the attorney detested the KKK personally, he spoke of their rights being just as important as the NAACP, and he cited how efforts were made in the 1940s, 50s and 60s to force the NAACP to reveal their membership roles.

Fighting to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution even means defending those we can’t stand. We cannot be so willing to exclude someone from the protection that the document affords.

Rep. Barbara Jordan also spoke to this issue in that tense hearing room on July 25, 1974:

“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ‘We, the people.’ It’s a very eloquent beginning,” she said. “But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’”

Any American who claims to love this nation with all of his or her heart should take the same view — no matter how raw our emotions have been rubbed or how much anger we have for the despicable human beings who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11. None of us should be so angry and shameful that we trample the one document that has held this nation together all of these years.

I am a believer in Jesus Christ; He is my personal Lord and savior. I am an American who loves this country with all of my heart and soul. But I also believe that the building of a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site will not be an insult to the souls lost when those planes flew into the Twin Towers. It will not be a slap in the face to others traumatized by the events of that day. Allowing this project to go forward will show the best of America. It will mean that we not only love and respect our values, but we also revere them to the point that we allow something to go forward, even when other Americans disagree.

Even the pain of 9/11 isn’t enough to turn our backs on the U.S. Constitution. THAT would simply be un-American.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sphere: Related Content

Dr. Laura Blew a Great Chance at Racial Understanding

The beauty of having your own radio or TV show or column is that you have a wonderful opportunity to address many of the significant issues of the day by using the enormous platform that has been bestowed upon you.

That’s why when I read — and then heard — the stunning, childish and venomous discussion Dr. Laura Schlessinger had with one of her callers, it was clear to me that the firebrand radio talk show host blew a perfect shot at using a discussion around race, which could have really helped a lot of people.

Dr. Laura is getting ripped, and rightfully so, for her continuous use of the N-word during a discussion this week with a black female caller. Instead of paying attention and listening to the woman’s genuine concerns about the racist comments made by the friends and family members of her white husband, Dr. Laura made her out to be the villain.

It was clear that Dr. Laura has a beef of her own when it comes to black folks being too sensitive about matters of race, and that’s why she tried to use the example of black comedians using the N-word to buttress her position that the woman should really pipe down and not be so sensitive about such issues. She could have easily pivoted from the caller’s question to this issue, but she didn’t and instead chose to dig herself deeper and deeper into the racial abyss.

First, Dr. Laura needs to step back and realize that, yes, black comedians use the N-word on stage, and it’s something that I have protested and called for all African-Americans to stop using. But let’s be honest, comedians of all ethnic groups do all kinds of crazy stuff on stage — dissing African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, whites, men, women, gays, Jews, the mentally challenged, you name it. So, when the B-word, C-word or F-word is used on stage, are we to say that is perfectly acceptable language offstage?

Dr. Laura also fails at political analysis by asserting that a lot of black folks voted for President Barack Obama because he’s half-black. Should someone remind her that Obama got 95 percent of the black vote. Pretty pale Democrats like Al Gore and Bill Clinton received between 90 percent and 92 percent of the black vote. Dr. Laura, that’s largely a Democratic thing; it’s not necessarily a black thing.

Yet as I listened to the caller, and as Dr. Laura continued haranguing her, it was clear that Dr. Laura — who has made millions dispensing advice on the radio — needs to have someone sit her down and explain how she not only screwed up by tossing out the N-word repeatedly, but she also had a chance to be a part of what many considered to be essential: a national discussion on race.

The caller was disturbed about those in her husband’s inner circle driving their racial stereotypes, as well as making racial comments in front of her.

When I keep hearing folks talk about the need for a national conversation about race, it’s not all about President Obama leading it. If we are to conquer our racial demons, it’s necessary for the caller’s white husband to be willing to look his friends and family members in the eye and say, “Your comments are insulting to my wife and I want you to stop. Now!”

The real problem many of us have when confronting racial matters is that we are too unwilling to challenge those closest to us. No child wants to enter into a verbal battle with his or her mother or father who could hold racist views or accept racial stereotypes. But none of us can be silent when that happens. It was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Do you recall the restaurant scene in the movie, “The Blind Side,” where the “friends” of Sandra Bullock were making off-handed racial comments? When she had enough of their mess, she made clear that she would be dining with others. She refused to allow their racial hang-ups to stain her. Bullock could have easily kept the friendship intact by saying nothing and moving on. But she chose a different path.

Dr. Laura had the same opportunity. She could have listened to the woman and dispensed some genuine advice that might have helped the caller and her listening audience. Instead, she grabbed the chip on her shoulder that revealed to us that she is clearly annoyed when some blacks complain about racism. She compounded that by telling the woman she should never have married outside of her race if she couldn’t stand racial humor. Folks, that’s NOT how to do it.

Dr. Laura has apologized, but that hasn’t stopped folks like Marc Morial, CEO of the National Urban League, from calling on The Talk Radio Network to drop her syndicated show.

If we truly want folks to “get over it” — that’s what Dr. Laura essentially told this black woman to do when it came to racism — it is going to take us reforming the bigots, and not admonishing the offended. I fundamentally believe we can get people to see their racial bigotry or insensitive views and offer them a pathway toward healing, but that can only happen when we’re willing to challenge one another — friend or foe — as well as look into the mirror and confront our own deeply embedded views on race.

Roland S. Martin is an award-winning CNN analyst and the author of the forthcoming book “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House as originally reported by Roland S. Martin.” Please visit his website at www.RolandSMartin.com. To find out more about Roland S. Martin and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »