It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Alveda King niece of MLK Jr on Fox News

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:25 AM
WOW Alveda King (niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr) nailed it tonight on the Fox news democrat panel! I never knew who she was before tonight and I wasn't expecting her to say the things she did. That's one smart lady and I agree with her 110%. She seen right through the democrat BS and called it out accordingly! She even gave a nice little reference to Trump which also shocked me. I guess a lot of people are fed up with crooked a** politicians, even her. She explained things that many liberals don't seem to understand being that - things aren't free, you can't give higher wages and not expect everything else to go up sky high as well. She mentioned if you tax the super rich they will take their business to other countries which will greatly hurt us. She hit all the hard points that people sweep under the rug. Especially the health care mess, among other sweet points. Hats off to this woman!!!
*The link below only touches on some of what she said, it was just on and hasn't hit the net just yet*

Small bit of Alveda King Fox News Panel
edit on 18-1-2016 by Staroth because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:36 AM
a reply to: Staroth


It IS possible to prevent prices of things going up, in response to wages increasing. What you do, is you make it known to companies that the cost of those wage increases, is to be carried by the company, not the consumer. That's right, it comes out of the bottom line, not out of the consumers pocket, and that is something that companies are going to have to just deal with, which should be an absolute cake walk in a nation where companies like Walmart barely pay anything for their stock in the first place.

Look at milk, for example. I very much doubt that Walmart pays a proper fee per pint, to those who farm the cows, and milk them. They certainly do not in Britain, under the name ASDA. Now, if the law treated the transaction between Walmart and its suppliers of milk, as Walmart basically paying a wage, the wage per pint would have to be REALISTIC, but because it is a wage increase, Walmart could be FORCED to prevent any hint of that cost, changing on the shelf. Of course, if people have a problem with solving the issues presented by corporate bodies being so powerful, that they can screw their own employees and those who supply them as well, then I can see why there might be a difficulty getting something like this passed. But people have to accept that any resistance to an idea such as I have just laid out, is tantamount to accepting that companies must have the right to earn an unreasonably large bottom line, at the expense of the societies they operate within.

Society is more important than profit, more important than the government which serves it, more important than the concerns of wealthy individuals who are fearing having their next yacht purchase endangered. The only thing that has ever mattered, or indicated that a society is healthy, is how well the people who are least well off, are treated by the society itself. If those individuals who stack the shelves are in desperate poverty, which many of them are, requiring government handouts of various sorts to get by, then you have a problem, a big one. In a capitalist economy, there can be no excuse. Every person who has employment, should be able to live off the proceeds of their work, and the only people who should be paying that tab, are companies who are in a position to loose a few digits on their bottom lines. Not consumers, not workers, but large scale employers.

That would make things a little more realistic, and promote more competition. Stores like Walmart rely on growth to sustain themselves, but they are so huge and powerful, that they skew the markets in their favour, playing both ends at the cost of the middle. Frankly, I believe that any measure which balances both the wages paid so that it matches cost of living, and locks the amount that can be charged by a company like Walmart or others, for what amounts to essential things like milk, bread, cheese, vegetables and meat, will have a positive effect. However, being precious about controlling the behaviour of such companies over some misguided fear of what political school such thinking issues from, will avail folk of no benefit what so ever.

There are those who would disagree on principle. However, it must be clearly understood that disagreeing on principle does not change facts. The fact is that without such changes as I have suggested, it will soon come to pass that working for a living, will change its name to working for no reason other than to work, because no one will be making a living doing it, no matter how much of it they do, or how well they complete their daily toils.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:59 AM

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry.... Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong... with capitalism.... There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism". ~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Frogmore, S.C. November 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.

I think I'll take her words as strictly representing her own views, not as representing his.

EDIT to Add: And for the record, Monday the 18th is Martin Luther King Day. His birthday was on the 15th but it gets celebrated on the Monday. That's why they had her on, even though her views are contrary to what he actually said on the matter.
edit on 18-1-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 04:03 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit
Wage and price controls?
Nixon tried that.
It didn't work.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 08:59 AM
I have watched Alveda on several Fox interviews. You can tell she is related to the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr , no doubt

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 01:52 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

When you over burden and over tax a business they will move else where, like China, Mexico and the on the rise Vietnam. This is already happening here in large numbers! These countries are willing to work for much less and are doing so with great success.
EX Clothing: They have the textiles, the workers, the factories, the means to dump sludge without many restrictions, fewer taxes and lower wages. Once it's gone from America, there will be no jobs, no jobs means....more on welfare. It's going to crack and give way eventually.
This is a broad view without going into a lot of detail, but you get the idea. I hope.

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

What the Great MLK said was true..for those times November 14, 1966. Since then things have changed, times have changed. Had he been alive today I am sure his views would have changed along with the world.
Politicians are riding on the backs of the bruised for votes and it's just wrong! They are making people false promises for votes and that's what Alveda King called out. If you search the entire world over you will never find a bigger liar than a politician! They will literally lie right to your face, once they have their position - they could care less about any of us!

Alveda King is on Fox News often, she is a contributor. Perhaps think it over and give her words another chance?

posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: Staroth

Thank you for your kind words & respectful tone. Unfortunately, I'll have to decline your offer to "think it over & give her words a chance". I believe that everyone has a different path to take, so I don't begrudge her of the path she has taken. And I agree with you completely about the untrustworthy nature of most politicians. In fact, that's one of the reasons I practically beg the kindhearted people I know to run for office in some capacity. After all, if the "good people" won't run for those positions, who's left to run for them?

Unfortunately (for the sake of this argument), I'm a flaming socialist, progressive, and "libtard". I dream of creating socialist utopias where no one has to work to survive, as our basic needs will be provided to us as a perk for living in those advanced societies. Then, citizens could spend their time working towards their personal dreams; working to better themselves (martial arts, reading, arts, etc); working to improve their family bonds; working to help community collectives that focus on advancing humankind (like a "Space Collective" that strictly focuses on colonizing & terraforming different planets & moons), etc. Of course, people could also spend their time working on beating a video game or could opt out of our society completely, choosing to live outside of the city boundaries.

Either way, I don't think my goals will coincide with hers. And I was just pointing out that she speaks for herself, not for her famous uncle. But thanks for the kind words & hopefully this thread goes even better than you hoped for.

Edit to Add: I guess I should also add that it's ok if companies choose to leave a country or region for tax reasons. However, those companies should also lose access to the benefits they receive from the countries they've abandoned. After all, it wouldn't make sense for a company to receive subsidies, tax breaks, and other favorable economic incentives from a country when they're not willing to also accept the responsibilities that come with being there. Otherwise, that's just corporate welfare or what I call "parasite capitalism".

So if those companies don't want to pay their fair share of taxes to a country, their goods should face tariffs or they should be blocked from doing business in that country. After all, it's a privilege for companies to do business in a an area, not a right. In fact, one of the primary purposes of a government is to regulate commerce. That's the whole reason there are different types of business licenses, tax ID numbers, DBA forms, and the such. Individual people have to get permission from a government (a business license) in order to legally do business in that jurisdiction.
edit on 18-1-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:43 AM
a reply to: Staroth

Yes, I do get that.

I think the problem is that business leaders are business leaders first, and members of society maybe fifth. That needs to change. You see, those market forces that drive businesses away from nations who treat their workers properly, those business leaders who do not see any reason why a business ought to stay if it means paying people properly, or paying the correct amount of tax, or looking after the environment, those business leaders simply have their priorities wrong.

When you are in business to feed your impoverished family, to climb out of the gutter, that is one thing. Hell, I could forgive a person in that situation doing an awful lot of immoral and deeply questionable crap in order to make ends meet. I would not do those things myself, because frankly, I am a machine, and get done by brute strength and wit, what many have to achieve via questionable methods. It's not easy, but it gets the work done.

However, when someone is at the head of a multi million dollar company, or multi-billion dollar company, they have an obligation to not only follow the rules, but do the right damn thing by the nations in which they operate. Starting a factory or a steel plant, or any large enterprise in a nation, and making money from it to the point where you are not merely climbing out of the gutter, but living with your skull firmly rooted in the cloud pack, means you have an obligation to the society off whose back, you made that vast sum of cash.

The fact of the matter is, that any big shot who forgets that after a certain point, he stopped being the person responsible for actually producing the product, and handed that responsibility onto someone else, and that since he took up office space, instead of getting his overalls on at five in the morning, his life changed in meaning, is walking around with his eyes shut. Once you make it, once you have a big house, and several big cars, and a fancy ass membership to a golf lodge, your focus should be on making sure your staff are looked after, and looked after well, because at that point you are already made, you could give up work, and go live in your big, plush house, and just live off the proceeds of your work thus far.

Business leaders who think it is appropriate to move a business elsewhere, simply because it would be cheaper to operate from there have their priorities wrong, to a massive degree. It is impossible to earn the right to ignore the workforce which made you a billion, it is impossible to earn the right to consider yourself first and others last, it is impossible to earn the right to ignore your country.

If one starts a business without first ensuring that they work into all their plans, the ability to pay the taxes, look after the environment, and keep the workers both in work, and properly paid, then one should not be starting a business at all. Period.

new topics

top topics


log in