Using Lincoln: Beck, Sharpton Haven't A Clue

Yesterday, on the anniversary of the pivotal speech made by Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement, two political rallies were held in Washington, using Lincoln as a backdrop for one and keynote references for another.

The first, Fox's Glen Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally.

The second, Al Sharpton's "Reclaim the Dream" rally.

Both marketers and hucksters for their form of rewriting history with respect to both Lincoln, and Dr. King's mission which resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in effect redressed the job and social discrimination during the 1960's that was a hangover from the civil war primarily in the South, much of which was due to the opportunist carpetbaggers who migrated there during the reconstruction from the North post the civil war who established non-agricultural businesses there.

Mr. Beck is labeled a "conservative" by most of the mainstream media. But his fundamentalist conservatism beliefs actually are more aligned to the British form and definition of conservatism than that of "conserving" the intent and provisions of the U.S. Constitution as was written and intended by those framers and founders. Regaining the state's rights and people's rights and balances of power requires not simply rallies and rhetoric, but re-establishing the entire framework of the Constitution which has been progressively lost, and never more so in the modern era during the Wilson Administration.

Mr. Sharpton can only be likened and labeled for those boomers who remember when, as the "Don King of race relations," at this point, ready to pounce on any perceived injustice as his recent forays into Arizona politics and the immigration and border situation attest. His "dream" also includes gaining equality for even non-Americans by nationality that were not brought here primarily against their will, but have migrated to the United States with the encouragement of their former country's leadership in droves since the Reagan amnesty.

The Constitution does provide in its preamble that it is only relevant to citizens, by birth or naturalization, of these United States. And the government's job actually is to protect its legal citizens from foreign invasion or displacement. So the border issue and immigration have little to do with the civil rights those founders were concerned with in providing for those first ten amendments with respect to this particular group of individuals, as opposed to the slavery issue. We do still have post the Mexican-American war open borders at both the North and South that continue to compromise the safety and security of the citizens of this nation, and the headlines on what is occurring in the border states have gained national attention, but have been a major problem for literally decades due to the criminal activity which has escalated cross-borders - which has increased in leaps and bounds since the last Reagan amnesty and "Reaganomics." This is also where many of the followers of the tea party movement and Mr. Beck fail to connect in their stances also on border security and immigration. It has been both political parties that have been behind leaving those borders open for commercial reasons, and promoting and escalating the outsourcing which has occurred for their particular favored subjects.

Which is why Mr. Sharpton's positions on this issue are similar to Mr. Beck and his followers, by and large. He too, on the other hand, is simply another form of globalist in his understanding of commerce and free trade, and believes that the freedom from regulation over national and multi-national corporate commercial interests is one of those freedoms that the founders and framers intended.

When the entire genesis of the Revolutionary War was not simply over "taxation without representation" but also was against the impact a foreign global corporation and its partnership with the sovereign had on them and their livelihoods, and was negatively impacting domestic production and commerce in even the choice of tea those founders were required to purchase, and taxed at that.

Global monopolies and foreign competition were also behind that tea dumping.

But Mr. Beck, who has gone on book tours with a shirt proclaiming "Britain Rules" fails to include that in his more "neoconservative" posturing for Fox, a station owned by a former Brit and the national animal, actually, of the British.

The two pied pipers of the globalist agendas have more in common really, than they do not.

And Mr. Lincoln, after all, wanted to keep the union together, as a Northerner, in order to protect those Eastern factories and their bottom lines and profits, after all.

His historical stated positions on the "slavery" issue pre-Civil War were merely to provide safe passage for all the slaves that so desired back to Africa. He was responsible also for those "poll taxes" even.

But as with what continues to occur in this country with these "rallies" sponsored mostly by the media types and publicity hounds without any fundamental Constitutional basis in their rallying calls, diversion is the name of the game.

Since Congress is still enjoying their August recess and would guess that less than a third of them even had their televisions on to enjoy the goings on in Washington for the mainstream media most of all and their bottom line profits, and the book tours of these particular individuals and their slated speakers during their absence.