Why the Martin Luther King Jr Holiday Should Be Repealed

It is generally believed that Martin Luther King, Jr., was an intelligent African-American who promoted harmony between the races. Numerous books-all of which talk about his deeds of valor to promote good-will between both blacks and whites during a time when riots and strife regularly occurred in America-have been written about his life. He is generally regarded as a man of ethics, a man who fought against injustices. After all, he did receive the Nobel Peace Prize; and that, in itself, is something that is admired throughout the world. However, there is another side of King-one which no one dares to discuss. In today’s politically correct society, it seems that much of King’s life-the parts that do not convey his image of a leader who promoted peace-have been forgotten. Very few people, especially those people who were not alive during the time that King promoted his brotherhood, have heard about this other side of King. I challenge everything you have been taught about King’s love of people and life, about his nonviolent tactics, and about his beliefs and ethics. All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men On January 15, 1929, a boy by the name of Michael was born in Atlanta, Georgia. His father’s name was also Mike. Many friends and relatives called the child ?Little Mike.?1

Little Mike’s family was somewhat wealthy, despite the poverty surrounding them during the great depression; and he lived in a 13-room house.2 His father, who was often called ?Daddy? by Little Mike and people in the community, came from several generations of African-American Southern Baptist preachers.3 Daddy was married to a woman by the name of Alberta. She had attended Spelman College, a school in Atlanta for black women, and was the daughter of the first president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Atlanta chapter.4 Little Mike had a sister named Christine and a brother named Alfred. Daddy was extremely religious and followed the Old Testament teachings word-for-word. He felt that such activities as ?dancing or playing cards? were considered immoral.5 Oftentimes, he ?whipped? his son, Little Mike, for misbehaving.6

The Essay on Martin Luther King Speech People Population

The famous speech of Martin Luther King The famous speech, " I Have a Dream", was held in 1963 by a powerful leader of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950 s and 60 s. He was born January 15, 1929 the son of an Atlanta Pastor. Martin Luther King Jr. always insisted on nonviolent resistance and always tried to persuade others with his nonviolent beliefs. In 1963, King spoke from the steps of the ...

In 1934, after touring Bethlehem and Jerusalem at the expense of the Ebenezer Baptist Church’s congregation, Daddy proclaimed that he wanted to be called Martin Luther King and his son, Little Mike, would be renamed Martin Luther King, Jr.7 Daddy did that because he admired the work of the protestant reformer in Germany, Dr. Martin Luther, for whom the Lutheran church is named after. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sr. both went by those names during the rest of their lives. Like most children, King, Jr., played with other children. When he was young, a white child, with whom King had been friends, rejected him. King reacted to this and decided from thenceforth, he said, to ?hate every white person.?8 Because of that, he did not socialize much with whites until college. Martin Luther King, Jr., was academically advanced for his age. At the age of 15, he attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia.9 From there, he entered Crozier Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania. While attending Crozier Seminary, he was introduced to and influenced by the late Dr. Mordecai Johnson, president of Harvard, who was a strong believer in Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi.10 In 1955, when Martin Luther King, Jr., was only 26 years old, he became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.11 It was during that time he first gained public acclaim.

There was an incident in which he participated that gained national attention. On December 1, 1955, the event that led to King’s claim-to-fame occurred when a bus driver ordered some African-Americans to stand so that some whites could sit. Rosa Parks, an African-American lady, refused. She was arrested. King protested. He felt that the system, which allowed sitting privileges for whites on buses, was completely intolerable. (In some places in the South during that time, African-Americans, although allowed to ride on the same bus as whites, had to use the seats in the back.) King was head of the Montgomery Improvement Association boycott against the city’s bus system.12 Because King was articulate, had no apparent skeletons in his closet, and was unafraid of the city’s leaders, he was the natural spokesman against the busing system. (Rosa Parks and the bus-boycotts are discussed in more detail in another chapter.)

The Essay on Native American Vs African American Trickster Tales

Beep BeepVRRROOOOMMMMand the Roadrunner speeds away from the deceitful Coyote as Coyote falls over a Cliff with his Acme dynamite still in hand. The tale of the trickster is known and shared all around the world. It is an age old story that has many different versions and is culturally diverse. Almost every culture has some version of the trickster tale; from the early West African people and ...

On May 2, 1956, King’s demand for integrated buses was met. He, then, articulated the rest of his plan: ?Two of our original proposals have been met, but we are awaiting on the third: employment of Negro bus drivers for predominantly Negro routes.?13 While no one should be denied a place to sit, it seems unnecessary and extreme to force white bus drivers from their jobs of driving in ?predominantly Negro routes.? Evidently, it seems that King felt that the implementation of preferential treatment for African-American applicants was a noble idea. One of King’s aides mentioned, on King’s behalf, the preferential treatment that they sought. On Sunday, July 21, 1963, KTTV in Los Angeles, California, and other stations across the U.S. had a show called The American Experience. A few prominent African-Americans were featured on the show: Wyatt Walker, an aid to Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X (Little), who was a minister of the Nation of Islam at the time; Allen Morrison, editor of the magazine Ebony; and James Farmer, the head of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

Malcolm X said that his Muslims wanted whites to give African-Americans a nation, businesses, houses, et cetera far away from white people. The others felt somewhat different. Walker, Farmer, and Morrison demanded full integration and ?compensatory preference?-the exact term used-by coercive force if necessary. They felt that ?mere equality? was insufficient; ?massive preferential treatment,? they said, was to be required. They felt that African-Americans should be paid more for the same jobs that whites do; that employers should fire whites and replace them with African-Americans; that employers should actively go out and find African-Americans, provide transportation, and hire them-qualified or not; that the constitution must be changed or replaced to enforce this; that America should rapidly move towards a socialist system; and that violent revolutionary measures would be taken if America failed to do this. Unfortunately, a number of politicians in Congress granted many of the demands, despite the protests of a few honorable Americans. Whenever King’s demands were not met, he used force and intimidation. In February of 1966, all the King’s horses and all the King’s men decided to launch an attack on a castle.

The Essay on Civil Disobedience King Laws Unjust

There is a rich tradition in this country of civil disobedience. Nonviolent civil disobedience was a critical factor in gaining women the right to vote in the United States as well as the U. S. labor movement with striking effectiveness such as the Industrial Workers of the World, the Chicano community s URW grape and Lettuce boycotts... My understanding of civil disobedience was shaped by images ...

The castle, which they assumed ?trusteeships? of, was a six-flat tenement in Chicago. This was done as part of his campaign to gain power among the poor and, he claimed, to help them. King had no authority to do that; his power was only that which is derived from police-state tactics. King felt that his ?morality? was more important than the law and property rights; he deemed his actions to be ?supralegal?-above the law.14 On several occasions, King preached that African-Americans should disobey any ?unjust laws.? At the time, there were some communities that did not allow African-Americans to vote in full force by imposing certain restrictions on voters. (Some communities required that you had to be able to read and write in order to vote, and many blacks living in rural areas were illiterate.) King said that the people who resided in those communities did not have to obey the laws. Notwithstanding communities where all blacks did have the right to change the laws by voting, King went to the extreme of suggesting that blacks should not obey any laws that they disliked. On March 28, 1965, while King was on the television show Meet the Press, he stated his opinion of laws:

?I do feel there are two types of laws. One is a just law, and one is an unjust law. I think we all have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws. ?I think that the distinction here is that when one breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly. He must do it cheerfully. He must do it lovingly. And he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty.?15

The Essay on Native American Europeans Americans Africans

The New cHaOtiC World Three completely different cultures clashed together and triggered the confusions all three worlds had against each other. All their misunderstandings then turned into a whole New World that still remains. Today, this New World is one of the main confinements for crimes. Religiously, the complexity of the unfamiliar Gods they believe existed had caused the big misconception. ...

King is quoted as suggesting, ?There may be a community where Negroes have the right to vote, but there are still unjust laws in that community. There may be unjust laws in a community where people in large numbers are voting, and I think wherever unjust laws exist people on the basis of consciences have a right to disobey the laws.?16 However, King’s suggestion to disobey ?unjust laws? is something that could lead to anarchy. Who would decide what is a just and unjust law? Martin Luther King, Jr., apparently decided what laws should and should not be obeyed. (Stokely Carmichael, a militant African-American, voiced an ideology very similar to King’s comments but much more blatant: ?To hell with the law.?17 Certainly, Carmichael, much like King, felt his actions were ?supralegal,? as if he was obeying a higher law-his own.) When King’s actions of disobeying ?unjust laws? landed him in jail, he could always count on some good Samaritans to bail him out.

The late Thurgood Marshall, an African-American who became a member of the Supreme Court, was one of those good Samaritans. He was unhappy with the way King gave his bills to the NAACP when Marshall served as the director-counsel for the group. ?With Martin Luther King’s group, all he did was to dump all his legal work on us, including the bills,? said Marshall. ?And that was all right with him. So long as he didn’t have to pay the bills.?18 Because of problems between King and the NAACP’s Chicago chapter, that chapter eventually, formally split with King’s group.19

Indeed, King did feel that he could decide what was legal and what was not. He felt that rules did not really matter, that he only had to obey what he chose to obey. J. Edgar Hoover, the former director of the FBI, described how King would break laws ?to obey a higher law?-King’s laws: ?Unfortunately, some civil rights leaders in the past have condoned what they describe as civil disobedience in civil rights demonstrations. ?Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, after arriving in Chicago, Ill., early in 1966 in connection with the civil rights drive there, commented about the use of so-called civil disobedience in civil rights demonstrations and said: ?`It may be necessary to engage in such acts. . . . Often, an individual has to break a particular law in order to obey a higher law.’ ?Such a course of action is fraught with danger, for if everyone took it upon himself to break any law that he believed was morally unjust, it is readily apparent there would be complete chaos in this country.?20 Due to the ?turmoil inspired? by King and his friends in the 1966 Chicago riots, where he engaged in his civil rights war, Congressman Edward Derwinski of Illinois described Martin Luther King, Jr., and King’s cohorts as ?Dr. Martin Luther King [Jr.] and his professional riot-inciting group.?21 The city of Chicago held a meeting, hoping to avoid marches that were creating animosity and spreading the strength of the police dangerously thin.22 Residents noted that their attempts to appease the protesters were futile. One resident proclaimed: ?Suddenly, it dawned on us that the whole meeting was a farce. . . . Every time we’d make a concession, they’d move to a new spokesman and push for something more. They never had any intention of calling off the marches.?23 Trying to appease the unappeasable is an effort in futility, as the residents quickly learned; and the farce of the peaceful ?protest marches? resumed.

The Term Paper on Domestic Violence among African Americans

Domestic violence is abuse that occurs within a personal relationship. It can occur between former or current spouses or significant others. Domestic violence doesn’t have a name it affects both men and women of any race, religion; gay or straight; upper class or low class; adolescents, adults, or seniors. But most of its victims are women rather men. While domestic violence is present in all ...

In the Chicago riot of July 1966, Mayor Richard Daley said that the strife was ?planned!? ?Dr. King’s aides were in here for no other reason than to bring disorder to the streets of Chicago,? noted Daley.24 Apparently, he was right, since King had spoken to numerous gang members prior to the ordeal. King even went to the extent of showing gang members a film of the Watts riots. The Baltimore Sun had an interview with King, in which King’s motives were clearly demonstrated. The Baltimore Sun revealed: ?In an interview . . . Dr. King acknowledged that his `end-slums campaign in Chicago is an implementation for the concept of black power,’ but under a more palatable name. ?Dr. King acknowledged that his presence in Chicago, the street rallies, sit-ins, marches, and door-to-door campaign to sign up members of protesting [units] have more far reaching aims than the immediate dramatization of problems of impoverished Negroes. . . . ?Dr. King . . . spoke at the headquarters of the West Side Organization, where a sign on the wall said: `Burn, baby, burn, boycott, baby, boycott.’ Roving bands of youths and some adults . . . broke windows, looted stores, and stoned police cars and small police vans.?25 The riot was intense.

The Term Paper on Los Angeles Riots Police Central South

... Los Angeles Times in October after the riots, Anglos, African Americans, Latinos, and Asians listed economic troubles among ... The Los Angeles Police Department must change its ideals that they should wait for violence to occur ... just waiting for an event like the Rodney King verdict to explode. All that was needed ... speak with one voice. There are many sub cities in LA such as the Westside, Hollywood, ...

It began when African-American youths, numbering approximately 100, stoned a police car. Martin Luther King, Jr., blamed the riot on Chicago Mayor Daley’s refusal to make concessions to the civil rights program. ?This is his typical style,? said Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio. ?Rarely has Reverend King chastised looters, arsonists, and conspirators for violence. He always justifies their actions and, directly or indirectly, encourages them.?26 When the weekend came, Illinois Governor Kerner was forced to use the National Guard, because ?police could not control rioting that in three nights included burning, looting, two deaths, 100 injuries, and extensive property damage,? noted Congressman Ashbrook.27 King had a discussion with the militant African-American Stokely Carmichael. In the discussion, King seemingly recommended to Carmichael that he should try to ?dislocate the functioning of a city? but ?without destroying it.? These are King’s words of advice to Carmichael: ?To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be longer lasting, more costly to the society. It is more difficult for the government to quell it by force. The disruption of cities you want will become much easier.?28 Unfortunately for the U.S., King’s followers not only disrupted the city but almost destroyed a large section of Chicago following King’s speech.

Many respected African-American religious leaders felt that King was doing more harm than good and asked him to leave their cities. They said that they did not want their cities disrupted. They pleaded with King to stop his campaign, but it did no good. King continued to foment problems in the U.S. Reverend Henry Mitchell, the leader of a group of West Side African-American ministers in Chicago who represented about 50,000 African-Americans, felt that King should ?get the hell out of here.? Mitchell and his fellow ministers felt that way because King’s civil rights marching in 1966, he said, ?brought hate.?29 ?If [King] wants to march on the West Side,? said Mitchell, ?let him march with rakes, brooms, and grass seed.? Mitchell continued, suggesting that African-Americans in the Chicago area wanted ?peace, love, and harmony,? not the violence that came to town with King.30

The late Bishop C. Fain Kyle, who was an African-American, issued a news release that said King was ?directly or indirectly responsible for the chaos, anarchy, insurrection, and rebellion brought about through demonstrations and rioting throughout the United States in recent years, months, weeks, and days.? Kyle said that King should be ?shorn of his power and imprisoned for his criminal acts and deeds for defying the courts of the land.?31

J. H. Jackson, an African-American who was president of the National Baptist Convention at Kansas City, Missouri, said that King was causing problems all over America. Jackson said that King encouraged riots. Jackson said that King’s actions were responsible for ?designing the tactics that led to a fatal riot? and the death of Rev. A. O. Wright in Detroit.32

In May of 1961, King spoke at the Southern Baptist Seminary. After he gave his speech, three churches in Alabama voted to withhold funds from the seminary.33 King often warned of impending riots if his demands were not met. In November of 1967, he delivered a speech in Cleveland, Ohio. He warned of ?massive winter riots in Cleveland, [Ohio;] Gary, [Indiana;] or in any other ghetto.?34 King said that ?a cadre of 200 hard-core disrupters will be trained in the tactics of massive nonviolence.?35 The ?massive nonviolence? mission of the ?cadre of 200 hard-core disrupters? was ominous: ?nationwide city-paralyzing demonstrations.?36 King even went to the extent of threatening two mayors, suggesting that they would be the ?two outstanding men we have set up as lambs for the slaughter.?37 King said that he was ?very pleased? with certain ?victories of creative black power? (emphasis added).38 The young boy who swore to ?hate every white person? was now a man, and he was keeping the promise that he made in his youth.

King’s insurrectionist-tactics were commonplace among the places that he attended. In one instance, King went to Albany, Georgia, and threatened to have a new drive for African-American rights. Ten days later, King ?set a day of penance following a night of rioting, during which Negroes were arrested as they marched on city hall, hooting, laughing, and throwing bottles, bricks, and rocks at law officials,? said former Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio.39 The situation had been maintained, reported the chief of police, until King returned to the city for an ?illegal demonstration.?40

When the FBI expanded COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence Program) in 1967 to include ?Black Nationalist-Hate Groups,? King’s Southern Christian Leadership (SCLC) was targeted, along with the Nation of Islam.41 King was probably under that listing because he would often associate with minorities who hated whites. For instance, he was allied with Cassius Clay (a.k.a. Muhammad Ali), a professional African-American boxer who at the time was a member of the Nation of Islam.42 (Later, however, it appears that Clay changed his beliefs, unlike King.) King, also, met with Malcolm X, and King had a meeting with Stokely Carmichael, offering him words of advice. And, on February 24, 1966, Martin Luther King, Jr., met with Elijah Muhammad, leader of the neo-Muslims.43 During the National Conference for New Politics, which had King listed as a member of its national council, King delivered a speech. The people who attended were Vietnam war protesters, black power advocates, civil rights workers, representatives from a number of leftist organizations, and others. The Chicago Tribune of September 6, 1967, said that the convention ?turned out to be an assembly of crackpots and innocent do-gooders who meekly did the bidding of a handful of black power fanatics.? There were two marijuana parties that took place during the convention.

Sex orgies took place before audiences of delegates. The words ?black power? were written on the walls, hallways and rooms of the hotel and were carved on the 15 elevators in the hotel where the delegates were staying. And, much merchandise was destroyed.44 A total of $10,000 in damage to the hotel was caused by the peaceful people who came to here King speak. Although King spoke of ?nonviolence,? his actions were designed to elicit violence. King once said, ?Negroes will be mentally healthier if they do not suppress rage but vent it constructively and its energy peacefully but forcefully to cripple the operations of an oppressive society.?45 Notice how his apparent contradiction is utilized: He told African-Americans that they should ?not suppress rage but vent it? so that it would ?cripple the operations of an oppressive society,? yet this ?forcefully? crippling of society was to be done ?peacefully? and ?constructively.? What King was proposing was illogical and inconceivable. Louis Waldman, a prominent black-labor lawyer, described King’s methods as follows: ?The philosophy and purpose of Dr. King’s program . . . is to produce `crisis-packed’ situations and `tension.’ Such a purpose is the very opposite of nonviolence, for the atmosphere-of-crisis policy leads to violence by provoking violence. And the provocation of violence is violence. To describe such provocation as `nonviolent’ is to trifle with the plain meaning of words.?46 The U.S. government found that King’s actions were causing violence, racial problems, and the destruction of property. The Louisiana Legislative Committee noted that King was ?leading the Negroes in the South down the road to bloodshed and violence.?47

Although Martin Luther King, Jr., often said, ?I have a deep commitment to nonviolence,? his escapades could hardly be considered nonviolent. He was merely using double-talk. Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio described the violence that occurred after one of King’s nonviolent marches: ?On May 4, 1963, police dogs and firehouses were used to quell a demonstration by lawbreakers in Birmingham, Alabama. There had been violence plain and simple. Martin Luther King [Jr.] and his right hand man, Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, threatened that these demonstrations would continue. . . . There was, they said, `no intention of relaxing pressure without such action. We negotiate from strength’ and `will consider’ calling off the demonstrations after the action. This was the mood of the well-known nonviolence of Dr. King.

The day following action by police dogs and firehouses, the New York Times reported that residents of Birmingham heard from the lips of King, the man who preached peace in the streets but led the lawless bands: `Today was D-Day. Tomorrow will be double D-Day.’ ?One seldom hears Martin Luther King [Jr.]’s name without `nonviolent’ slogans coming in successive breaths. But quite often the nonviolence of King leads to violence of riot proportions. The Big Lie technique is clearly used. Repeat `nonviolence’ over and over so the public will believe it and then practice violence or the encouraging of violence.?48 A Birmingham judge had issued an injunction that forbade King from participating in the march there, which culminated in the aforementioned riot. King protested the injunction and took it to the Supreme Court. In June of 1967, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of King and seven others for violating the law. Justice Stewart, speaking for the court’s decision, said: ?The rule of law that Alabama followed in this case reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion.

This court cannot hold that [Martin Luther King, Jr., and others] were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. . . . Respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom.?49 On the same day that members of the Supreme Court delivered their verdict against King’s inflammatory escapades, riots were raging. In Tampa, Florida; Montgomery, Alabama; Los Angeles, California; and Cincinnati, Ohio, the riots were particularly intense.50 Giving the impression that he was righteous and the Supreme Court was wrong, King said that the Supreme Court’s decision would ?encourage riots and violence, in the sense that it all but said that Negroes cannot redress their grievances through peaceful measures without facing the kind of decision we face.?51 How he figured that the ?measures? he took were ?peaceful? is something the world will never know; what is known is that the rioting to which he referred took the lives of a few people and ransacked the city of Birmingham. Of course, King’s diatribe was stated four years after the Birmingham riots, which was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court; and he probably figured that everyone had a short-term memory and would not remember.

Whenever police were sent to stop the random violence that King’s followers caused, King would scream police brutality. It was a simple two-step process: 1.) King would provoke riots by his comments; 2.) When the police came to stop the ensuing violence, his followers would resist and then blame any injuries on the police. King’s methodology was very similar to what Fidel Castro used initially to take control of Cuba. Senator James Martin of Alabama stated a distinct similarity between King’s and Castro’s methods: ?In a memorandum circulated in Cuba before the communist revolution, the first point in the formula was to `discredit the police in every way by causing incidents which will lead to arrest and then charging police brutality.’ The program now being carried on in the United States by Martin Luther King [Jr.] and others is following this formula to the letter, whether King and those who constantly criticize the police know it or not. The shameful riots in Los Angeles in which screaming mobs burned, robbed, and murdered had not even ended before Martin King [Jr.] was charging police brutality and demanding the firing of the nation’s finest police chiefs.?52 King claimed that there were problems in Montgomery, Alabama. He asked President Eisenhower to stop-what King called-?a reign of terror.?53 The city’s police commissioner dismissed King’s claim, suggesting that it was merely ?the rantings of a rabble-rousing agitator.?54 The politicians were all too quick to cave-in to King’s demands. King influenced a large number of nonwhite voters. King even said, ?We will have Negroes so fired up that, I believe, they will withhold their support from candidates who do not respond to their demands.? When King said ?fired up,? he literally meant it. Oftentimes, houses, apartments, and other buildings were burned down after he delivered his inflammatory speeches.

King’s antics were designed to elicit violence-from both his disciples and opponents. By staging marches in relatively peaceful communities, King could either (1) cause his followers to engage in a riot or (2) provoke violence from his adversaries. Either situation worked well for him. If his followers caused a riot, the riot would gain international attention; and he would blame it on the racist whites-not his followers-and on ?unjust laws.? If marches generated violence from his adversaries, King’s followers would attain victimization status; marchers would generate sympathy from peace-loving Americans. And, it would force the government to enact more laws to prevent recurring violence and quell the nonviolent demonstrators. It appears that King figured his antics would make his battle seem honorable in the eyes of the masses who would not take time to delve deeply into his methodology.

The magazine Newsweek of March 22, 1965, described King’s actions: ?For weeks, Martin Luther King [Jr.] had been escalating his Selma voter-registration campaign toward the state he calls `creative tension’-the setting for paroxysm of segregationist violence that can shock the nation to action. . . .?55 There is no question that King’s ?creative tension? definitely shocked the nation, especially after all the ?creative tension? caused millions of dollars in damages from riots. The New York Times of February 24, 1964, had this to say about the method that was utilized: ?The Negroes rationale in holding night marches is to provoke the racist element in white communities to show its worst.?56 It appears that King was attempting to ?provoke? anything but nonviolence.

In the Saturday Review of April 3, 1965, King revealed his methodology: ?1. Nonviolent demonstrators go into the streets to exercise their constitutional rights. ?2. Racists resist by unleashing violence against them. ?3. Americans of conscience in the name of decency demand federal intervention and legislation. ?4. The administration, under mass pressure, initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.?57

His scheme was brilliant-somewhat iniquitous but, nonetheless, brilliant. First, he had his followers travel to relatively peaceful towns-places that were unaccustomed to seeing black power advocates, organized crowds, and the lawless element-and antagonize the towns’ people with signs, marches, sit-ins, and chants. Next, the people residing in those peaceful communities, who were unaccustomed to demonstrations and who wanted to maintain a peaceful neighborhood, rebelled against the marchers. It seems that King desired that type of conflict to occur, which he would blame entirely on ?racists?-those whites who resisted his plans. King and his disciples would be viewed as the victims rather than the aggressors in the eyes of some Americans, who were unaware of the full scope of King’s activities and those of his colleagues. Finally, with this view that he portrayed as the victim going for him, he was able to have his demands met-the ?remedial legislation? that brought about preferential treatment for blacks. In many cases, however, when King went to the big cities, rather than the small towns, his followers rioted. When his followers caused riots, he would merely blame the ?unjust laws.? After all, King claimed that his followers could not be held responsible for their actions; surely, everything was the fault of those evil, bigoted whites, not the peaceful, loving, caring, oppressed nonwhites who looted, burned, and destroyed the city.

King’s love for violence can be summarized by one of his remarks: ?A riot is the language of the unheard.?58 King’s attempts to excuse his cohorts and his own lawless behavior as being the righteous ?language of the unheard? was evil. Evidently, this was one of those things that he also loved.

King professed that he loved the world and all those around him. He said it all the time and claimed to be a peaceful, nonviolent, loving citizen of good-will. If he had so much love for everyone, his behavior should have validated those feelings. Well, it did not. On a couple of occasions prior to 1964, King even attempted to commit suicide.59 Although King may not have loved himself, he did care for some of his followers. King’s ?love? for people was, oftentimes, ?supralegal.? Demonstrating what could only be defined as supralegal love, federal agents, investigating King’s life, discovered that he violated some laws during the pursuit of his goals. Specifically, they discovered that King ?had violated the Mann Act [white slavery].?60

On one occasion, King shared his ?love? by being with a few different women in one night and then became involved in an argument with one of his ladies. The advocate of nonviolence became upset, hit her, and ?knocked her across the bed,? said King’s friend, the late Rev. Ralph David Abernathy.61 King’s friends were also of questionable morality. For example, Bayard Rustin, who worked five years as an adviser to King, was once convicted of ?sodomy?-sharing his perverted love with someone.62

Much of the love, which was shared by many of King’s disciples, had been recorded by the FBI. The FBI had been keeping tabs on King by tapping King’s phone and bugging his quarters since October 10, 1963.63

Because of the investigations conducted by the late FBI director J. Edgar Hoover of subversive organizations, like both the Nation of Islam and Communist Party, Hoover has been repeatedly slandered by them. And, some of the media have only been too happy to repeat these things-probably with the hope of generating a little attention to themselves (and the accompanying money).

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has always been targeted by people who, in their melancholy state-of-mind, bordering on sheer paranoia, have felt that the FBI is out to get them. In some cases, where the people are criminals, they may be right. (For instance, Louis Farrakhan, who has threatened to lop off the heads of any undercover FBI agents in his organization in his speech Warning to the Government, is probably not rated too highly among FBI members.) There have been numerous attempts, recently, to defame the late J. Edgar Hoover-much of which borders on sheer insanity, the rest of which is an outright, licentious rumor-by leftist hatemongers. Why would they do that? It is quite simple: By attacking Hoover with their unproven, insipid jeremiads in an attempt to discredit him, they hope that all of his findings will be discredited as well. For instance, there have been rumors that Hoover was some type of quasi-KKK member or a clandestine racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the same time he had left-wing extremists investigated, he was doing the same with the right-wing extremists as well.64 And, despite differences that he had with Martin Luther King, Jr., Hoover was personally responsible for launching a massive investigation to find King’s killer, James Ray, which led to Ray’s conviction.

By attacking Hoover, these leftists hope to destroy the FBI’s reputation and credibility. They hope to discredit the facts uncovered by the American government about the leftist hatemongers’ nefarious activities. The leftists, in numerous cases, have already destroyed the reputation of some law enforcement agencies. Now, they are attempting to destroy anyone in the government who does not hold their pixilated opinions as truth. Hoover has been unfairly maligned and viciously attacked by unsubstantiated allegations, the foremost of which is that he was a homosexual. It almost seems ironic that the leftist hatemongers have accused Hoover of being a homosexual, since many of them engage in it or, at the least, promote its acceptance. Some people in the media are only too happy to repeat the baseless rumors concerning Hoover.

Anthony Summers wrote a book about J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. In his book, he alleges that Hoover was a closet homosexual. To prove his ludicrous allegation, he quotes some real honest-and that term is used sarcastically-people. He cites people like Seymour Pollock, a friend of the mobster Meyer Lansky. Pollock said, ?The homosexual thing was Hoover’s Achilles Heel.? Evidently, we are supposed to believe Pollock, a person whose company was the mob, over Hoover, who spent his entire life on maintaining law-and-order, according to Summers.

Curt Gentry, in his book J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets, reiterates the same baseless rumors as Summers. Contradictory to Gentry’s suggestion that Hoover may have been a homosexual, Gentry admittedly noted that Hoover had once warned former President Richard Nixon that Nixon was surrounded by a ?ring of homosexualists.? Apparently, Gentry cannot even see the contradiction in his own writing: If Hoover was indeed a homosexual, he certainly would not care if homosexuals were in Nixon’s government.

It is time to put an end to the allegation that Hoover was a homosexual. Hoover never did approve of homosexuality. And, he made that known. He did not even allow homosexuals to be members of the FBI, which was stated in the FBI’s rules at the time. Ralph de Toledano, in his book J. Edgar Hoover: The Man in His Time, describes how the baseless rumors of Hoover being a homosexual began. It all started in 1964. One of Lyndon Johnson’s aides and associates was arrested for committing a ?homosexual act? in a bathroom at a YMCA. Johnson’s aide was emotionally collapsed after being arrested for the homosexual act and went to a hospital in Washington, D.C. The White House kept the lid on the story for 24 hours and did not tell the newspapers. One of Hoover’s FBI assistants found out that Johnson’s aide was in the hospital but did not know the reason why. The FBI assistant sent some flowers to Johnson’s aide, using J. Edgar Hoover’s name, which was customary. The media, hoping to generate a few headlines, were only too happy to make that known. Hoover had difficulty explaining what happened for a couple of reasons, which is described by Toledano: ?If [Hoover] had said that he knew nothing of the homosexual charge, he would have admitted that the FBI was not omniscient. If, on the other hand, he claimed knowledge, then he would be convicting himself of friendship with a homosexual.?65 The Communist Party’s members heard about the incident with the flowers and decided that it would be in their best interest to use some under-handed tactics of their own. They decided to engage in what Hoover described as a ?smear campaign? against him.66 Their hatred for Hoover has always been well known, so that should not be too surprising. After all, almost single-handedly, Hoover had kept the Communist Party from attaining social acceptance by releasing information about its nefarious activities.

The Communist Party sent a letter to several government officials, which was supposed to have been written by Hoover, that suggested Hoover himself was engaging in homosexual affairs (as if Hoover, a man who had fought valiantly against the acceptance of homosexuality into the FBI, would engage in such a perverse act).

The letter was described as ?scurrilous and putrid? by Senator Bourke Hickenlooper.67 Hoover proved that the letter was just another disinformation attempt that was made to discredit the FBI by attacking him personally.68 Though there have been many attempts to use disinformation against Hoover, what he purportedly discovered about King during the course of the bugging is simply incredible. Carl Rowan, an African-American syndicated columnist, was initially perturbed when he discovered that King had been bugged. In one of his columns, Rowan blamed J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, for King being bugged.69 However, Rowan later discovered that the bugging had been ordered by U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. Clyde Tolson, the FBI’s associate director, revealed that in response to one of Rowan’s columns: ?The wire tap on Martin Luther King, Jr., was specifically approved in advance in writing by the late Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Robert F. Kennedy. This device was strictly in the field of internal security and, therefore, was within the provisions laid down by the then President of the United States.?70

J. Edgar Hoover reportedly discovered that King had numerous love affairs. Hoover had ?at least 15 reels of tape about sexual entertainment and conversations between King and Abernathy that might lead to the conclusion that there was a homosexual relationship between the two ministers,? noted Rowan.71

During a discussion with someone in the FBI, Rowan discovered that there had been sexual intercourse in ?the King suite? with Rev. Ralph David Abernathy. At another time, there was an ?orgy.? Those conversations had both been taped by one of the FBI’s bugs.72

The black newspaper writer and television talk show host Tony Brown mentioned the reported conversation between King and Abernathy behind closed doors. In Brown’s column, he described King’s reported love: ?`Come on over here, you big, black m___________, and let me s___ your d___,’ Martin Luther King said to his friend, Rev. [Ralph] David Abernathy. . . .?73 In other areas, King’s ethics were also questionable, especially for a minister of good-will. In the course of King’s endeavors, he often plagiarized work from others, claiming it as his own and rarely giving credit where it was due. For a person who seemed accustomed to trickery, this was nothing new to him. King would quote others’ works verbatim and not give credit to the original authors. In the course of King’s plagiarism, he would occasionally change a few words and would often misspell them. The following is a sample of King’s literary theft; the left hand column is the original, the right King’s copy: ?We have granted freely, however, ?We must grant freely, however, that final intellectual certainty that final intellectual certainty is impossible. . . . about God is impossible.

Our knowledge of the absolute will always remain relitive [sic]. We can never attain complete We can never gain complete knowledge or proof of the real.74 knowledge or proof of the real.75 The following excerpts are from some more of his works. On the left is the work of others from whom King obtained his ideas. On the right is King’s work.76

All feasts are divided into two All feasts are divided into two

classes, feasts of precept and classes, feasts of precept and feasts of devotion. The former feasts of devotion. The feasts are holy days on of precept are holydays [sic] on which the Faithful in most which the Faithful in most

Catholic countries refrain from Catholic countries refrain from

unnecessary servile labour and unnecessary servile labor and

attend Mass. These include all attend Mass. These include all the Sundays in the year, the Sundays in the year,

Christmas Day, the Christmas Day, the

Circumcision . . . circumsism [sic] . . .

Before we come to consider some Before we come to consider some modern theories it may be well modern theories it may be well to refer to two views . . . to refer briefly to two views . . .

which are now obsolete or which are now obsolete or at obsolescent. least absolescent [sic].

If there is any one thing of which If there is any one thing of which Christians have been modern Christians have been certain it is that Jesus is a true certain it is that Jesus was a true man, bone of our bone, flesh of man, bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, in all points tempted our flesh, in all points tempted as we are. . . . At the well as we are. . . . When at the well at Samaria he asked the of Sameria [sic] he asked a woman . . . woman . . .

King plagiarized a significant portion of his doctoral dissertation. When Boston University formed a committee to determine the amount of plagiarism in King’s dissertation, the committee concluded that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part were copied from other people’s works.77 Despite that outrage-and probably due, for the most part, to King’s popularity among African-Americans-Boston University felt that ?no thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree.?78

How can King be viewed as a leader to today’s youth? He only obeyed the laws that he deemed just. He called for ?black power.? He incited riots. King threatened mayors. He wanted preferential treatment for African-Americans. He cheated in school and throughout his life. His love extended way beyond his speeches.

Some congressmen felt that the type of leadership given by King was not something to be admired. Congressman Waggonner felt that King did not deserve the attention he received. In contradiction to the beliefs held by King’s misguided followers, Congressman Waggonner told the truth behind King’s actions:

?The Washington Star of yesterday, September 20 [1965], summarized the feeling of those in government and out for the latest bit of meddling by Martin Luther King [Jr.] in an editorial, aptly titled, `Martin Luther King, Go Home.’ There is a great deal of concern in every quarter of the nation over the role this professional wowser has recently taken upon himself, that of a Secretary of State without portfolio. And, I might add, without invitation and without qualifications. ?[King] is a meddler and unqualified to tell others how to run either their government or their personal affairs. The fact that he is a Negro gives him the right, in the eyes of the deluded liberals, to meddle in any affair in which any Negro is involved. Yet the record shows that, wherever his presence is felt, there has been bloodshed, strife, and anarchy. His `nonviolence’ has bred violence. His `leadership’ has turned loose the rampaging mob. His `peace’ has fomented hatred at a time when cool heads and reasoning was needed.?79 In the latter part of March 1968, a month before King’s assassination, King decided to visit a garbage collectors strike in Memphis, Tennessee. He organized a demonstration which culminated in a riot. After the traditional burning and looting was completed, it was discovered that a 16-year-old was killed in the process. A judge, wishing to prevent more outbursts, put forth a mandate that made certain there would be no more demonstrations. King felt that it was an ?unjust law? and made it perfectly clear that that he was not going to obey the law.80 Had King obeyed America’s laws or had he decided to ?go home,? as some congressmen desired, it is quite probable that he would not have eventually been killed by the fanatic James Ray.

It seems an outrage that the American government has named a day after Martin Luther King, Jr. For those of us who are still idealistic about the American way of life and truth, justice, and honor, it appears that a ?petition for a redress of grievances,? to have that holiday repealed, would be in order. There is little question that the holiday was created to appease African-Americans; politicians felt that African-Americans should have their own ?hero?-their own day. However, there are so many blacks that have served America well-both in war and in peace-that it seems inappropriate to give King this recognition. As for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, it appears this may have been conferred by well meaning, but misguided, members of the international community, who were either unaware of all King’s activities in America or had feigned blindness. In response to this apparent contradiction-awarding a ?Peace Prize? to a man who had caused violence-one fellow stated his feelings, regarding the incident, which was printed in the Congressional Record:

?The politicians and government leaders had better stop pampering Mr. King and others like him and begin speaking against those who would bring more violence and lawlessness to our country. It is time for President Johnson to take a hard, tough line with these rabble-rousers who advocate anarchy. Former President Harry Truman stated it well some time ago when someone admonished him for criticizing the Rev. Martin Luther King [Jr.]. Mr. Truman was reminded that Mr. King had been the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Truman responded, `Well, I didn’t give it to him.’?81 Although it may seem that what has already been mentioned would be enough to warrant a repeal of the King Holiday, there is one thing about him that is particularly disturbing that needs to be addressed: King’s apparent belief in socialism or, communism. It appears that King and other leaders throughout the civil rights movement accepted that belief because they liked the idea of ?redistributing?-the socialist’s euphemism for stealing-other people’s property. In order to fully understand the reasoning for this folly and before delving into King’s involvement, it is necessary to take a cursory examination of the tenets of socialism. One particularly disturbing thing about America’s past is the socialists and communists who have organized to create their own Utopia-a place where others work to satisfy the socialists and communists’ laziness. The communists and socialists’ Utopia is a place where they control the government and decide who works where, at what time, and to be paid how much. The proponents of socialism and its twin brother, communism, have caused many problems in the U.S. and still exist in some places, especially in large cities.

Although the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has practically-for all intents and purposes-crumbled from following the asinine ideology of socialism, that has not stopped the socialist advocates in America from promoting more of the same.82 For instance, the International Socialist Organization still meets at the Teachers’ College at the University of Cincinnati, which it has been doing for quite some time, much like similar groups across the United States of America. (A couple of years back, I even came across one of the ISO’s fliers, which asked people to attend a meeting that was sympathetic towards the African National Congress, which is irrefutably affiliated with South Africa’s Communist Party and is described later.) Despite the U.S.S.R. crumbling, the fringe groups who operate in America and who support an ideology similar to that which was formerly embedded within the U.S.S.R.-often formed by otherwise intelligent people-have stridently advocated more of their ideology, though its end-result has proven to be detrimental to any nation.

The proponents of socialism and communism have never truly understood the work ethic (unless it was to be applied to others); physical labor and difficult mental labor has always been beneath them. They always complain of-what they call-the ?wage slave? type of relationship that is forged between worker and employer. The socialists’ maxim has always been this: You reap what others have planted, not what you sow.

Communism and socialism support the empowerment of their ideology through force or, if possible, through gradual changes. In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ past, the force used by the party resulted in the deaths of approximately 40 million of their own people.83 Unfortunately, that estimate was probably not too far off. Also, the Nazis-the National Socialist advocates-caused the deaths of millions of people as well. The killing of people has always been an important part of the socialist ideology; people will not accept communism unless by sheer force.

Communism is the complete lack of motivation. What is the purpose of working harder if you will not reap greater rewards? In the U.S.S.R., people learned that the harder they worked, the more the socialist leaders would benefit. The people also felt that stealing from a company was acceptable; after all, they reasoned, everything is everybody’s property-why not take it? The socialist leadership condemned the so-called ?bourgeoisie?-the people who had made money during their lifetimes through hard work-while the socialist leaders took the profits from the bourgeoisie (and, in a sense, the socialist leadership became the new bourgeoisie, while condemning the former).

The socialists condemned the capitalist yet took the rewards from those who produced and created new goods. The socialist leaders claimed to be for the worker, whom they called by the Latin word ?proletarian?; yet the socialist leaders did everything in their power to keep that very same worker in his place by their actions. For, they felt that they knew better than the worker what he wanted-or, for that matter, needed.

Socialism was created to trick the working class with pretty slogans and prettier words. It was created to take the wealth of a nation by using and manipulating good-natured workers. Socialism was never intended to help the worker; it was created to feed off of him, like some parasitic leach, sucking the life-blood of the worker until he was of no more use and giving no rewards to the socialist leadership.

Communism is the government dictating to you what you will do and what you will not do. It is the government telling you what you can say and what you cannot say. (Communism is political correctness at its worst; it was designed to control and manipulate.) Although there will never be a nation where its people are completely free-except those where anarchy is prevalent-America has allowed people a significant amount of freedom (which seems to lessen by the day), providing that the people do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Nowadays, since the so-called ?Red Scare? is over, many people who are outright socialists are incorrectly being labeled-and sometimes even call themselves-?liberals.? A liberal is anything but a socialist. A liberal is, basically, an open-minded person who is willing to discuss new ideas to better society; socialism is not a new idea and has been proven not to better society. The socialists or, communists who masquerade as liberals do not care about bettering American society as a whole; they only care only about their little groups or their special causes. Most leaders of the so-called socialist causes are in it just for the money or prestige from the followers.

Other people who are incorrectly called-and sometimes call themselves-?liberals? support the Bill of Rights, as long as it supports their rights and not those of their adversaries (whether real or imagined).

There have been major controversies in the American Civil Liberties Union when some of its members-the people who are actually true liberals, not just those who call themselves by that name-have suggested that the Constitution applies to all people within America, as it does, and not just this or that group. The pseudo-liberals have suggested that anything which contradicts their beliefs is not to be heard.

All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men America’s communists, socialists, and other subversives have brought about changes-changes to take away certain rights from people-that have assisted this nation in its spiral downwards. In order to take away those rights-the freedom and rights that have been created in the U.S.-the people who advocate communism or its twin brother, socialism, have had to use sheer trickery. It is by this same trickery that communist and socialist organizations have created deceptive names in order to camouflage their innermost desires. Very few communist or socialist organizations that have existed in the U.S. are as open about their beliefs to actually use the word ?socialist? or ?communist? in their names as UC’s International Socialist Organization. Oddly enough, some of the people who were socialists or communists are revered in today’s society, although most of them have become either obscure or forgotten. Let us examine these people, who have been operating in America for some time, and their deceptive measures.

In the year 1938, several people-James Dombrowski, Aubrey Williams, Carl Braden, and Anne Braden-were busy at work in the United States of America. For instance, James Dombrowski was working as the administrator of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare (SCHW).84 That sounds like an honorable organization. Everyone likes the idea of helping people-that is, ?human welfare?-and some places in the South (and the North, for that matter) are in definite need of it.

Oftentimes, things are not quite as good as they sound. It turns out that the SCHW was a communist front. Paul Crouch, an admitted communist from 1925 to 1942 who was one of the founders of the SCHW, identified the purpose of the organization before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee: The SCHW, said Crouch, ?was intended to lead to class hatred and race hatred, dividing class against class and race against race.? The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee voiced similar findings: ?[The SCHW] was conceived, financed, and set up by the Communist Party in 1938 to promote communism in the southern states.?85 The communists who formed the SCHW realized their mistake. They needed to do something to get rid of the bad image that their organization had from the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. They decided upon a simple solution-namely, to change the SCHW’s name.

They decided to call it the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF).

That sounds good. After all, everyone is for funding education, and there are schools in the South that could use a bit more money. The communists always did have a knack for disguising their evil intentions.

They changed the name of their outfit, but not much else; their address, publication, and phone number-along with most of the officers-remained the same. Dombrowski continued to work as the administrator of the ?new? organization, the SCEF. Board member Aubrey Williams and field secretaries Carl and Anne Braden-all of whom were identified as communists-continued to serve the SCHW with the its new name, the SCEF.86 The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually called the SCEF what it was: ?a communist transmission belt for the South.?87 It is not too surprising to discover that when, on October 5, 1963, the local and state police raided the SCEF office in New Orleans, quantities of communist literature were seized.88 The SCEF was notorious for its communist affiliation.

The Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, who was one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s African-American friends, became the head of the SCEF. Apparently, he had the qualifications that the SCEF wanted: ?former convict.?89 Later, Shuttlesworth formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), which King led during the boycott of buses in Alabama. There was one more person involved with the SCEF who deserves particular attention-namely, Martin Luther King, Jr. King spoke for the New York Friends of the Southern Conference Educational Fund. When people wanted to see the conference, they were told to make reservations through William Howard Melish, who was identified by the government informant Louis Budenz as a communist.90 That, in itself, is hardly worth mentioning, but the story does not end there. Pay close attention now. There were other organizations in America that were similar to the SCEF. The Highlander Folk School shares a legacy similar to that of the SCEF: Both organizations were formed from other organizations that were previously cited by the government as being communist organizations. (Those commies-they always were the clever ones at playing musical chairs, moving to different locations and changing the names of their organizations whenever someone turned over their rock.)

In 1932, James Dombrowski, the same fellow who was responsible for the formation of the SCHW and SCEF, and Myles Horton-both of whom were self-admitting communists-formed the Commonwealth College in Mena, Arkansas. Eventually, the government discovered that the organization was communist. (The sickle-and-hammer flag, which was prominently displayed, gave the communists away.) The attorney general said the Commonwealth College was a communist front and fined it $2,500 ?for violating the sedition statute of the state of Arkansas.?91 The faculty of the Commonwealth College decided it was time to move on down the road. They packed up their bags and moved to Monteagle, Tennessee, and formed the Highlander Folk School. Besides the communists Horton and Dombrowski, there were a few other communists who worked at the Highlander. For instance, Don West, who was the district director of the Communist Party from North Carolina, and Aubrey Williams, an identified communist, participated in the school’s operation.92

Aubrey Williams has an interesting history. Much like Shuttlesworth, Williams was president of the SCEF at one time, too. In 1963, he became national chairman of the National Committee to Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities (NCAHCUA).93 (Our American government, at one time, had an organization called the House Committee on Un-American Activities [HCUA], which investigated, simply put, un-American activities.) The people who formed the NCAHCUA probably thought that it was amusing to form an organization to abolish the HCUA, which was investigating the subversive activities of some of the members of the NCAHCUA. The American government did not think that was too funny; the Committee to Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities was cited for what it was: ?a communist front.?94 Martin Luther King, Jr., was associated with the National Committee to Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities.95

Obviously, the Highlander Folk School was one of those schools that gave its students a special kind of education. With James Dombrowski and his collaborators-Myles Horton, Don West, and Aubrey Williams-they decided to help educate the people of Tennessee. Although some people in Tennessee may have needed an education, there appeared to be an ulterior motive for the education given by the Highlander Folk School. Subjects like English and math were not even taught there, which might make you wonder what was taught at the ?school.? There were some well-known people who attended the Highlander Folk School and either received or gave the students their special education. For example, Rosa Parks, the African-American woman who started all the controversy surrounding the busing-boycott mentioned in the chapter A Man Named Michael, just happened to go there. She attended the Highlander Folk School for a considerable period of time and received the education offered by the Highlander Folk School.96 It appears that the busing-system incident had some interesting characters working behind the scenes. The busing incident helped pave the way for the preferential treatment that African-Americans receive today. Under the rallying banner of communism, the adherents fought for special treatment for African-Americans. That is what communism has always meant-namely, people given things that they would not normally merit by their own capabilities.97 There is no doubt that there were ulterior motives for the protests.

Of course, Rosa Parks, a former secretary for the NAACP denied any plans, which were probably discussed in intricate detail at the Highlander, about why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was formed. ?I don’t really know why I wouldn’t move,? said Rosa Parks. ?There was no plot or plan at all? (emphasis added).98 Could Rosa have been lying? Could there have been a ?plot or plan?? Let us take a look at the past history of the Highlander Folk School, which she attended. Horton, West, Williams, Dombrowski-all known communists-were involved with the Highlander Folk School. And, of course, Rosa Parks had attended the Highlander, too. Guess who else was involved with the Highlander Folk School? Martin Luther King, Jr. (His name just keeps popping up.) King gave a speech at the Highlander Folk School in 1957.99 On March 28, 1965, when asked by Lawrence Spivak on the television show Meet the Press about the incident, King admitted that he was ?there? and ?made a 45 minute speech.?100 Of course, it would not have done him too much good to deny his association with the Highlander Folk School, since a photograph of him was taken while he was there.

Why would Martin Luther King, Jr., be at the Highlander Folk School? Remember the incidents from the chapter Conquering the Castles: One of Martin Luther King Jr.’s aides said ?compensatory preferences? were to be given to blacks, and King said that he wanted only black bus drivers for predominately black routes. The Highlander Folk School, like many communist organizations operating throughout the U.S., supported those objectives. In the picture taken at the Highlander, which was shown in the now-defunct Georgia newspaper Augusta Courier, King is sitting next to Aubrey Williams, president of the Southern Conference Education Fund, Inc.101 Next to Aubrey Williams is Myles Horton, described by the Augusta Courier as the ?director of Highlander Folk School for communist training.?102 While King spoke before the assemblage at the Highlander, he said that he admired Horton’s ?noble purpose and creative work.?103 Horton made a form letter for the Highlander, dated May 15, 1963, on which King is listed as a sponsor of the Highlander Folk School.104 That should not be too surprising since King had announced before that his SCLC and the Highlander Folk School would be joining forces.105 Seated behind King, Williams, and Horton in the picture is Abner W. Berry ?of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.?106 Abner W. Berry was also a writer for the communist publication The Daily Worker.107 And, of course, dear old Rosa Parks, the lady who was involved in the busing incident (?There was no plot or plan at all?), was in the group photo.108

While on the television program Meet the Press, Spivak showed King the photograph taken at the Highlander Folk School. Spivak asked King about the photograph, which had the caption ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] at Communist Training School?: ?Will you tell us whether that was a communist training school and what you were doing there??109 King responded: ?Well . . . I don’t think it was a communist training school. In fact, I know it wasn’t. The Highlander Folk School, which was referred to in that particular article, was a school that pioneered in bringing Negroes and whites together at a time when it was very unpopular, to train them for leadership all over the South, and I think they did an able job in doing it [emphasis added].?110

King then went on to cite some respectable people who, he claimed, supported the Highlander Folk School-for instance, Eleanor Roosevelt.111 Although King did not offer any proof to substantiate his claim that former President Franklin Roosevelt’s wife supported the Highlander Folk School, a school which was seemingly intent on replacing the U.S. government with its own form of government and training its students ?for leadership all over the South,? that did not stop King from suggesting that she supported it. By associating the former President’s wife with the Highlander (whether true or not), making it appear as if it was a reputable organization, King was trying to disguise his nefarious alliances at the Highlander. Even on the slim chance that the late President Roosevelt’s wife did, in fact, support the Highlander Folk School-a very slim chance indeed-that does not mean anything other than that she was probably unaware of its activities. She was not a politician and did not have any special knowledge of subversive groups. However, King’s affiliation with the Highlander and its organizers were too involved to neglect.

Dr. Alfred Jarrette, the author of The Negro in Politics and an educational advisor to Harlem Youth Activities Unlimited, suggested that King ?has been used as a tool of the Communist Party in several instances.?112 Jarrette was almost right; King had not been ?used.? On numerous occasions, King had associated with subversive and communist organizations. Occasionally, he liked to do his friends a favor; so, every once in a while, he would take some money off their hands, say a few good words about them, make a speech that supported their beliefs, and do other nice things that friends do for one another.

Many high-ranking members of King’s various groups were outright, self-admitting communists. They acted as King’s advisers. Some were particularly subversive and had anti-American intentions.

Bayard Rustin was one of King’s colleagues and had worked underneath King in the Montgomery Improvement Association for a considerable period of time. Rustin was described by King as a good black leader and ?a brilliant, efficient, and dedicated organizer and one of the best and most persuasive interpreters of nonviolence.?113 Rustin certainly had the qualifications to work for King. ?Bayard Rustin’s qualifications are better documented in the public record, in that he was reported in the press to have been a member of the Young Communist League,? said Senator Strom Thurmond, R-S.C.114 Rustin maintained membership in the Young Communist League in 1936, while he attended college in New York, N.Y.115 In 1941, Rustin allegedly quit the Young Communist League (or graduated from it) but continued to engage in suspicious activities.116 During World War II, Rustin served 26 months in federal prisons for ?draft-dodging? and ?advocating resistance to the war.?117 He was, also, arrested for sexual perversion-arrest record number 33914-in Pasadena, California, and went to jail after he plead guilty in 1953.118 Rustin certainly seemed to have the right qualifications for the Montgomery Improvement Association. Rustin’s qualifications for the MIA did not end there. He, also, associated with the following: War Resisters League, World Peace Brigade, the magazine Liberation, Medical Aid to Cuba Committee, Committee for Nonviolent Action, Greenwich Village Peace Center, and other, similar organizations.119 (It is amusing how the socialist/communist organizations use nice-sounding titles-names oftentimes filled with such honorable things as ?peace,? ?Christian,? etc.-in a deceptive effort to make their organizations appear holier-than-thou.)

Rustin did have his finer points. For instance, he was for education; unfortunately, the education that he promoted, much like the Highlander Folk School, was ?socialist education.? It turns out that he was active in the American Forum for Socialist Education, a group determined to be communist-dominated by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.120

Could have Rustin cleaned up his act by the time he met King and served as King’s secretary and adviser in 1955? Everyone makes a mistake now and then in his youth. Everyone should have a chance to redeem himself. But, some communists never learn. Rustin’s activities were consistent-from his youth to his old age. Rustin kept busy with his subversive activities. Rustin attended the sixteenth national convention of the Communist Party in 1957 as, he claimed, an ?observer.?121 (All the other people who attended the event were observing it as well.) On occasion, he visited and was entertained at the Soviet embassy. He even went to Russia in 1958, which was sponsored by the Nonviolent Action Committee Against Nuclear Weapons.122 On February 4, 1964, Rustin was photographed while he was leaving a party at the Soviet mission to the United Nations.123 According to the January 1963 edition of Fellowship, cited in the Congressional Record, Rustin reported to be a ?friend? of Kwane Nkrumah.124 Kwane Nkrumah just happened to be the former communist dictator of Ghana. Rustin is credited with having helped establish a ?center for nonviolence? at Dar es Salaam, Tanganyika. It was hardly a ?center for nonviolence.? It was ?proven to be a training center for communist guerrillas,? and people who attended there had, on several occasions, ?conducted raids? in other nations.125 Rustin did not seem to care too much for the African-Americans whom he claimed to represent. In a speech he gave while at Richmond, Virginia, in September of 1963, his communist rhetoric was readily shown. He said, ?More bloody Negro suffering should be encouraged so that squeamish northern Negroes would be horrified into line.?126 On another occasion, Rustin said there was only one hope for blacks in America: ?Go left.?127 It is not too surprising to discover that Rustin, by his own admission, was an organizer of the Communist Party, U.S.A., for 12 years.128 In 1960, after five years of diligent work for King, Rustin was replaced, as King’s secretary and adviser, by Hunter Pitts O’Dell (a.k.a. Jack O’ Dell).129 O’Dell was more Red than a redneck’s neck on a hot Mississippi afternoon; in other words, he was an outspoken communist. King seemed to enjoy having those type of people in his organization for some odd reason. Could it have just been a coincidence?

O’Dell’s case-history is an interesting one. In 1956, he was asked to testify before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee about his communist activities. He took the Fifth Amendment when questioned.130 In 1958, the same thing occurred again.131 In 1962, the House Committee on Un-American Activities had a report published. The report was called Structure and Organization of the Communist Party in the United States. On page 576 of the report, the names of the people who were elected to the National Committee of the Communist Party, U.S.A., were listed. Hunter Pitts O’Dell was on the list. O’Dell’s credentials are disturbing: In 1956, O’Dell was district organizer for the Communist Party in New Orleans, Louisiana; was still a member of the Communist Party when Martin Luther King, Jr., hired him; and, while King was paying O’Dell, was elected to the National Committee of the Communist Party.132

The St. Louis Globe-Democrat had an article that exposed King for hiring the communist O’Dell on October 26, 1962. King, wishing to prevent the false-image that he tried so diligently to convey from being destroyed, claimed to have fired O’Dell.133 Later, it was discovered that O’Dell went to work as the administrator of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the organization of which King was president, in New York.134 The press discovered this apparent mistake on King’s part that was made again, which caused King to ?fire? O’Dell again on June 26, 1963.135 In July of 1963, a reporter, working for United Press International, phoned the New York office of the SCLC. Much to the reporter’s stupefaction, he was told that O’Dell was ?still administrator? of that office.136 O’Dell has also worked for Jesse Jackson.137 After it was revealed that O’Dell was a communist, King continued to secretly work with him. Together, O’Dell and King worked on what they called ?Project C.?138 They said that the ?C? stood for ?Confrontation Birmingham.?139 Later, they developed the Birmingham Manifesto, which outlined their plans in Project C. Members of the SCLC distributed it to people in the Birmingham community to create tension.140 The Southern Christian Leadership Conference has an interesting history. Its title, ?Southern Christian Leadership Conference,? is an oxymoron because the ?leadership? given by that group is hardly ?Christian.? King was, of course, king of the organization. Fred Shuttlesworth became second-in-command, the vice president.141 Rev. Andrew Young was appointed as the program director.142 There was something unusual about Young’s bedfellows. Young had been allowed to stay for free in Savannah and was given an office at the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers while there.143 Perhaps, the union liked having a reverend around. Or, there might have been another reason why he was allowed to stay there without having to pay rent-perhaps, certain ideas and plans shared in common. He had been trained at the Highlander Folk School.144 The Subversive Activities Control Board, which was an agency of the federal government, discovered the union to be ?communist infiltrated.?145

During a raid of the SCEF by the state and local police of New Orleans, besides discovering communist literature, a few things were discovered about King’s SCLC. A photograph of King with the known communists Dombrowski and the Bradens, which had been taken at an annual meeting of the SCLC, was discovered.146 Letters from King to Dombrowski and the Bradens were found.147

King and Dombrowski were good friends. King even filed an affidavit that supported James Dombrowski and the SCEF in New Orleans.148 When King was shown proof by the Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities that Dombrowski was, indeed, a communist, King said that he was still fond of Dombrowski.149 The Committee noted that King had no change in his endorsement of Dombrowski: ?Dr. King refused to repudiate the affidavit.?150 King and Dombrowski even corresponded regularly. In one letter that King wrote, their cordial relationship is clearly shown: ?This is just a note to acknowledge receipt of your letters of recent date. We, too, were more than happy to have you in our home, the fellowship was very rewarding. I will expect to hear from you when Bishop Love returns to the country. At that time, we can set the date for an Atlanta meeting. The Bradens-Carl and Anne, a couple of whites who associated with King quite frequently-have an interesting history together in the Communist Party. It seems that Carl Braden was once convicted of conspiring to bomb someone’s house. You would think that he would plan to bomb a right-winger’s house, one of those ultra-evil, vile, bigoted, hatemongering racists who are made from snakes, snails, and puppy dog tails (and, occasionally, froth at the mouth), as we are told. But, it turns out just the opposite. Braden was convicted of conspiring with African-Americans to bomb the house of a black and then place the blame on ?white segregationists.?152 It seems that Carl Braden was trying to pique a racial war, with the hope that his socialist ideology would be espoused by American society in response to it. King was very friendly with the Bradens. On October 7, 1958, in a letter to Anne Braden from King, King’s friendliness towards her was distinctly noted. In the letter, said Jack Rogers of the Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, ?King urges Anne Braden and her husband, Carl, both Communist Party members, to become permanently associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. . . . Of course, the Bradens were well identified publicly as Communists long before the date of this letter.?153 In the letter, King also thanked Carl Braden for attending a meeting.154 Anne Braden was once indicted for sedition by the State of Kentucky.155 When King’s SCLC had an event, his comrades would often speak as well. In Birmingham, Alabama, at the sixth annual conference of the SCLC, September 25-28, 1962, Anne Braden, Carl Braden, and James Dombrowski, who were all identified as communists, spoke.156 As you will soon see, there was more than just a guilt-by-association. King was up to his earlobes in subversive activities. King often claimed that he was just expressing his love for everyone. And, as King said to protect himself, anyone who disagreed was obviously just a hateful racist. (Perhaps, there was some truth, in some cases, to King’s claim that racists disliked him; however, that does not make his activities any less excusable.) When J. Edgar Hoover told the House Appropriations Committee that there were communists in the civil rights movement, King said that it was a lie. King even said that Hoover ?has allowed himself to aid and abet the fallacious claim of southern racists and extreme right wing elements.?157 We are told that we can trust King-who is usually portrayed as the honest, loving, caring, modern-day martyred messiah-more than Hoover, the white man who, as a consequence of being white, as we are regularly told, is innately a racist and who worked for the oppressive government of the United States. King would sometimes meet with foreign groups. Senator Strom Thurmond, R.-S.C., knew of King’s links with foreign groups. When King and another one of his friends, Ralph Abernathy, were arrested in 1963, Senator Thurmond described who they were: ?Two American Negro agitators were recently arrested in Birmingham, Alabama. Their names are Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy. These two men are expert professional riot-makers. They have been in contact with advisers in direct links with the Soviet Secret Service [the KGB] and extremist African groups operating from Europe.?158 Of course, King did much more than meet with American communists and occasionally write them letters. He often participated in marches with them. The communists-along with King’s black power advocates-would always rally behind King, often traveling far distances to see King. By the communists and others always traveling to be with King, they would be able to make a statement to the effect that they were a force with which to be reckoned; and they would be ready to meet any problem that they would encounter. It is true that there is strength in numbers, and King knew this, as did his colleagues. Attending anti-American demonstrations was quite common for King. One of King’s associates, Rev. James Bevel, had a demonstration at New York’s Central Park and the U.N. Plaza. During the demonstration, King spoke; American flags burned.159 In 1958, Martin Luther King, Jr., was operating as the co-chairman of the militant group Youth March, along with a veteran supporter of communist fronts, A. Philip Randolph. The communist newspaper The Daily Worker reported the march: ?Large number of the Left forces actively aided in mobilizing support for Youth March and were in vast audience.?160 The communist publication Challenge noted that ?the Marchers’ White House Student delegation leader and 14 of the main youth organizers were members of the Young People’s Socialist League.?161 King participated in a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, in 1964. U.S. Representative William Dickinson described the four groups of people who attended. He said, ?One group was the Alabama Negro who participated to secure rights and privileges [emphasis added].? The second group was described as ?do-gooders?-people who had good intentions but were misguided. Another group was described as ?human flotsam: adventurers, beatniks, prostitutes, and similar rabble.? And, the fourth group, who was accredited with organizing the others, was, in Congressman Dickinson’s words, ?the Communist Party.?162

King spoke at the march in Montgomery. And, some other people spoke as well: the communist Carl Braden; Abner Berry, a director of the Communist Party; James Peck, a criminal with a lengthy federal record who once attempted to stop the launching of the U.S.’s first nuclear submarine; and Bayard Rustin, a self-admitted Communist Party organizer for 12 years.163 Today, people are expected to believe that it must have been mere coincidence that all the communists spoke at the same rally as King. After all, as we are so often told, King could not have been a communist. On August 29, 1967, the National Conference for New Politics began its convention. Almost every single subversive organization in America-Socialist Workers’ Party, Progressive Labor Party, W.E.B. DuBois Clubs, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Draft Resisters’ Union, Revolutionary Action Movement, and, of course, Communist Party, U.S.A.-attended the convention.164 Members of King’s SCLC made sure that they attended, too. After all, King was the ?keynote speaker.?165 Along with the usual communist ranting, there were some anti-white chants of ?Kill Whitey, Kill Whitey,? which were heard at the convention King attended.166 During the convention, some violence occurred: One representative was slugged on the head with a bottle; a Communist Party leader’s son and another person were robbed at knife- point.167 Many communists supported Martin Luther King, Jr. Michael Laski, who was chairman of the (Marxist-Leninist) Communist Party, U.S.A., noted King’s alleged allegiance. Laski said that King was secretive about his relationship with the Communist Party, U.S.A. On April 13, 1967, Laski told a press conference this: ?King knows what’s going on. He is allowing himself to be utilized by the Communist Party. . . . King willingly enters into an alliance with the Communist Party. . . . Mr. King receives support from organizations and individuals that are tied to the Communist Party. He knows what is happening, and so does James Bevel.?168 Gus Hall, a renowned communist, said that the leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A., ?consult with and advise top Negro leaders in their civil rights campaigns.? ?Members of the Communist Party are very active in all the Negro organizations engaged in the civil rights struggle,? said Gus.169 And, he was right. Of course, King vehemently denied it to the general public, knowing what would happen to his hidden agenda if he were to admit his affiliation with the Communist Party. In one speech, Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ?I am sick and tired of people saying [the civil rights] movement has been infiltrated by communists and communist sympathizers. There are as many communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida.?170

There must have been quite a few Eskimos getting sun burnt on Florida’s beaches at the time of King’s speech. Other than the organizations and people previously cited, the NAACP seemed to have quite a few subversives working. For instance, John Wesley Dobbs, who was the national vice president of NAACP about the time that King was talking about all the Eskimos, also happened to be on the board of directors of the SCEF. Dobbs signed an amicus curiae (a document intended to aid the court’s proceeding) to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Communist Party in the fall of 1955.171 The NAACP has been filled with subversive, anti-American people, according to evidence adduced by the Florida Investigation Committee (FIC).

That is not to say that everyone who was a member of the NAACP was a communist. Certainly, some had honorable intentions but were merely misguided. The FIC listed the communist affiliations of the NAACP’s top members. Apparently, the NAACP’s letterhead in the past listed 236 of its national officers. The great majority of the NAACP’s national officers had been involved with communist enterprises. Altogether, the national officers curtailed membership in a staggering 2,200 communist enterprises, which averages out to more than nine per name! 172

When King needed support, it came from more than just the NAACP, which was discovered to be filled with subversives. A meeting was held by the Emergency Committee to Support Birmingham in an effort to support King’s tactics in Birmingham. The principal speaker was Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth. Some of the other speakers were James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and Malcolm X.173

What is CORE? Much like the NAACP, it appears that the purpose of CORE for some of its members has never been honorable. (However, it must be noted that even in CORE, there have been people whose intentions were good but have been manipulated by others.) The purpose of CORE was best summarized by former Senator Eastland: ?This organization is the war department of those who sell hate, collect donations, and sow the seeds of discord in this country. Since its inception, its creed has been lawlessness, and its tactics have followed the pattern set by communist agitation the world over.?174 King vehemently denied having ever been a communist, just as many others of that lost-cause did. However, his claim, reportedly, did not fool the people in the government who were investigating King’s involvement. According to the black newspaper columnist Carl Rowan, who has attended National Security Council meetings and who was allowed access to confidential FBI files on King that have since been sealed, King was known to be a communist since May of 1962, when King’s name was ?placed in Section A . . . tabbed Communist? in the FBI’s files.175 Bill Sullivan, diligently working for J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI, determined that, at the time, King was ?the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security.?176

If King’s communist activities were known as early as 1962, if not before, by the FBI, a logical question should naturally follow: Why do not more people know about it? The answer is simple: In order to prevent recurring violence-something that the majority of peace-loving Americans detest-a lid was put on King’s sordid actions. The Department of Justice had a ?special task force? appointed to determine what to do with King’s FBI files. Knowing full well that a King holiday would not be condoned or tolerated by any sensible White person after reviewing the evidence amassed by the FBI (and probably wishing to prevent a riot), the special task force articulated this on January 11, 1977: ?[The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s] surveillance produced tapes and transcripts concerning King and many others. These may be sought by King’s heirs and representatives. Worse still, they may be sought by members of the public at large under the Freedom of Information Act. We recommend that these tapes and transcripts be sealed and sent to the National Archives and that the Congress be asked to pass legislation denying anyone access to them whatever and authorizing and directing their total destruction along with the destruction of material in reports and memoranda derived from them? (emphasis added).177 A mere three weeks after the investigation was concluded by the Department of Justice’s task force, U.S. District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ?ordered that the F.B.I. should file with the National Archives all of the F.B.I. tapes and documents growing out of the wiretaps, buggings, and other surveillances of King, and that the materials regarding King not be made public for at least fifty years, except by court order.?178 Fifty years-that is a long time to wait. If the current falsehoods surrounding King have been instituted in about two-and-a-half decades, the time between his assassination and now, it is perturbing to consider how much more can be hidden and distorted in a little more than three decades, the time between now and when the ban ends. We are expected to wait for more than 30 years for King’s files!

It is interesting to note that our government felt that things would be ?worse? if the public was allowed access to documents that, by all rights, people should be allowed to view under the Freedom of Information Act. It almost seems as if some people in the government were attempting to hide something from their constituents-the very people that they are supposed to serve. That is simply intolerable. Fortunately, the Congressional Record is not sealed, so more forthcoming evidence taken from excerpts of it shall be shown in order to conclusively prove the true agenda of Martin Luther King, Jr. The truth shall set us free-?free at last.? It is difficult to tell, exactly, when Martin Luther King, Jr., became affiliated with subversives; it probably began sometime in college-perhaps, when he joined the ?Dialectal Society.?179 While King attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, he had a cordial relationship with Benjamin Mays, who purportedly ?had an extensive record of support of communist fronts and causes.?180 Regardless of when King first became affiliated with his communist cohorts, he eventually curtailed membership in-or was affiliated with-over 60 communist groups or people before he was killed. That fact was made known by an affidavit issued by Karl Prussion, an FBI counterspy from 1947 to 1960, which was inserted into the Congressional Record. Prussion promulgated that several members of the NAACP and CORE, including Martin Luther King, Jr., were affiliated with communist activities. He stated:

?I [Karl Prussion] . . . solemnly state that at each and every meeting [of five meetings attended, sponsored by the Communist Party], one Ed Beck, Communist, who is presently secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [N.A.A.C.P.] of San Mateo County, California, and a member of the Congress of Racial Equality (C.O.R.E.), presented the directive from the district office of the Communist Party in San Francisco to the effect that: ?`All Communists working within the framework of the N.A.A.C.P. are instructed to work for a change of the passive attitude of the N.A.A.C.P. toward a more militant, demonstrative, class struggle policy to be expressed by sit-ins, demonstrations, marches and protests, for the purpose of transforming the N.A.A.C.P. into an organization for the achievement of the communist objective.'[181] ?I further swear and attest to the fact that that at each and every one of the aforementioned meetings, one Reverend Martin Luther King [Jr.] was always set forth as the individual to whom communists should look and rally around in the communist struggle on the many racial issues. ?I hereby also state that Martin Luther King [Jr.] has either been a member of, or wittingly accepted support from, over 60 communist fronts, individuals, and/or organizations, which give aid to or espouse communist causes.?182

King was affiliated with ?over 60 communist fronts, individuals, and/or organizations?-quite a few. Karl Prussion produced a Documentary Report on Martin Luther King (Jr.), also. In it, he listed some of the communists who were King’s comrades. It is interesting to note that those types of organizations, oftentimes, attempt to hide their hideous agenda by having a name that sounds respectable, as mentioned earlier. The asinine attempts by certain groups to deny that Martin Luther King, Jr., had been affiliated with many communist organizations are contradictory to the evidence. For brevity’s sake, all the subversive groups or people, who were affiliated with King, are not mentioned. According to Prussion’s report, King was affiliated with the following subversives on this list: 1. Ad Hoc Committee on the Eisenhower-Khrushchev Talks to Explore the 2. War Resisters League-speaker at 36th annual dinner; 3. Highlander Folk School-speaker at 25th anniversary celebration on September 2, 1957; 4. Manifesto Against Passage of New Sedition Laws by the States-signer; 5. The International Workers Order; 6. Southern Conference Educational Fund; 7. Fellowship of Reconciliation-member of advisory council, editorial contributor; 10. National Advisory Committee of the Congress of Racial Equality; 11. Emergency Civil Liberties Committee; 12. Petitition to Congress to Eliminate House Un-American Activities 13. Petitition to President Kennedy-signer, denouncing the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (who were both uncovering his affiliations with subversive groups); 14. Braden Clemency Appeal-initiator of petitition asking for clemency for Carl Braden, convicted field secretary of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, and letter soliciting signers of petition, June 7, 1961; 15. Liberation-writer for, March 28, 1961; Prussion listed a few of King’s communist cohorts, too. Prussion said that the following were communist associates of King: A.J. Muste, Harry Bridges, Pete Seegar, Aubrey Williams, W.E.B. DuBois, Abner Berry, Bayard Rustin, Ben Davis, Gus Hall, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Rufus E. Clement.184 Prussion was quick to point out a striking point: ?Since King has not rejected the support-but, rather, encourages and welcomes it-of individuals, publications, and organizations that give aid and comfort to revolutionary [communist] objectives, he necessarily becomes an integral part of it.?185 When King’s communist cohorts were arrested, he came to their aid. King endorsed a petition to free Carl Braden, who was convicted for being the communist field secretary of the Southern Conference Educational Fund.186 He signed a plea to have Junius Scales freed. Scales was the leader of North Carolina’s Communist Party and was one of the few people convicted under the ?membership clause? of the Smith Act. King tried to get Scales pardoned, hoping that President Kennedy would be sympathetic towards Scale’s desire to destroy America.187 Morton Sobell, a convicted atom bomb spy, was another fellow that King led an appeal to free. King even went to the extent of joining the ?National Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell? for the convicted traitor.188 Obviously, King’s allegiance was never to the nation in which he lived.

King’s relationship with communists was a two-way street. When King was arrested, his communist friends quickly came to his rescue. ?Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, U.S.A., and Benjamin Davis, Secretary of the Communist Party, U.S.A., protested the arrest of King in wires to President Eisenhower,? said the communist publication The Daily Worker of October 30, 1960.

The government was never too concerned about King’s activities-other than finding out what he was doing. Although the United States’ government has made laws denouncing communism in the past, most of the laws were useless. An excellent example of this is the Internal Security Act of 1950 and, better yet, the Communist Control Act of 1954. The Internal Security Act of 1950, created to keep the government aware of subversive groups operating in the United States, was declared wrong on the basis of technicalities. Although the government could find the subversives, the courts merely slapped the subversives’ hands and said: See you later. During a discussion of the Internal Security Act in Congress, the reason for it being struck down in 1967 was explained: ?. . . [T]he Internal Security Act of 1950 finally received its death blow recently, when the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that the Communist Party could not be made to register because to do so would violate the privilege against self-incrimination of the individuals who would register for the party. This is some 17 years after the act was passed, with the major purpose of getting the Communist Party to register as a Communist action group. As yet, no organization has registered under the provisions of that act.?189

What good are laws if there is not any compliance or enforcement of them? Apparently, the government must have thought that the Communist Party would be co?perative, working with them. Members of the Communist Party-or any subversive organization, for that matter-would never willingly admit that their purpose was to destroy the United States. People are not that stupid. In another revealing comment, Congress discussed why the Communist Control Act of 1954 was never used: ?The Communist Control Act of 1954 has never been implemented because no one knows what it means and the executive branch of the Government has been unwilling to try enforce it in any way? (emphasis added).190

Since the government would not enforce its own laws, was too busy fighting other branches or political parties, or, simply, did not know or care what its laws meant, Martin Luther King, Jr., was allowed to walk unscathed, with nothing to fear from the members of the government who were bickering over trivialities. When he began his campaign to undermine the government, especially during the Vietnam War, he was met with little resistance. The permissive attitude of the American government, when it comes to dealing with subversive minority groups, may be its undoing.

The Vietnam War was, in my opinion, only second to the Civil War as being the most divisive war in U.S. history. Protesters fought supporters in the streets. Massive propaganda campaigns were made by both the pro-war and anti-war sides. If you voiced dissent, you would be associated with leftists-although that was not always the case. Not all the people who were against the Vietnam War were dishonorable. During the Vietnam protests, there were three main groups who were quite vocal. The first group was those people who were leftists and were against the war; they opposed the war to such an extent that their protests of the war often resulted in violent opposition. The second group was peace-loving citizens and nationalists who were against the war. The third group was the people who believed in America-right or wrong-and followed the government’s orders without question. Briefly examine the three main groups operating during the Vietnam War: 1.) There were, without question, many subversives who were working against American soldiers stationed overseas. They wanted the mental illness of communism to spread all over the world. They despised America’s attempts to help prevent the spread of communism. The subversives were the ones pitying what happened to the evil communists operating in Hanoi. These people would not enlist and, when drafted, would not serve; if they were forced to participate, they would get out with some type of excuse. This was the group who said good riddance when American soldiers died. They would lie about the war just to make America look bad. When the war was finally over, this group contained the dregs of society who spat on the returning soldiers. Oftentimes, members of this group would attempt to masquerade as the second group, disguising their true intentions.

2.) There were many decent, concerned citizens who were against the war. Understandably, some felt that, although it was honorable for the government to stop the spread of communism, it was not the United States’ job to act as the world’s police man. These people felt that America should focus on problems here in our nation rather than problems half-a-world-away. Many of these people were against the government sacrificing America’s children for the benefit of Vietnam. Generally speaking, this group was not involved in the protests. These people would not enlist; but, when they were asked to serve, they would go (but with serious reservations).

3.) Some people believed that whatever our government did, it was right. The people in this group may have opposed the war acts initially; but, once the war was in full-force and people were being drafted, they had to support the war. Many of these people enlisted; others in this group served, with little hesitation, when drafted. They would rather die than risk their honor or appear to be sympathetic to the evil people in the first group. They were this nation’s warriors-those patriots who are always ready to fight on the behalf of America’s actions.

In 1965, amid controversy surrounding Vietnam, Martin Luther King, Jr., was at the forefront of those opposing the war. There is no question that he belonged to the first group-those who were sympathetic to the communists in North Vietnam, the Viet Cong. Under the pretense of pacifism and non-violence, he said that he opposed the war. However, his allegiance with Hanoi and its communist leadership were something that he had difficulty explaining to those who could see through his smoke screen. King revealed his plans in a discussion with the black militant Stokely Carmichael. King told Carmichael that he wanted ?to help our Viet Cong comrades-in-arms? by disrupting American cities.191 Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, both of whom were prominent newspaper columnists at the time, noticed King associating with Carmichael of the Student Nonviolent Co?rdinating Committee (Snick).

Evans and Novak were quick to point out that King had ?surrendered valuable ground to leftist extremists in their drive for control of the civil rights movement.? Also, they said, ?Unless King breaks with the Snick extremists, liberal whites may no longer follow his leadership.? They were right. Some of King’s followers-most of whom belonged to the first or second group-followed King’s lead. Senator Strom Thurmond stated his displeasure with King’s attempts to influence people in international affairs. Senator Thurmond felt that King had no right to engage in international affairs. Senator Thurmond described King’s activities: ?A whole new sphere of trouble-making for the United States was launched yesterday when Martin Luther King [Jr.], accompanied by Bayard Rustin, turned from his successes at creating domestic disorders to an attempt to play the same role with similar consequence in international affairs. . . . Neither King nor Rustin have backgrounds or experiences which would entitle them to an official audience. King is a notorious trouble-maker and intermeddler, who has of late publicly revealed his interest in international affairs. Only King, and possibly some agencies of the government, can be sure what qualifications he possesses, or thinks he possesses, which would make persuasive his proposals to the leaders of communism to whom he proposes next to address.?192 King said that if America were to take further steps against the communists in Vietnam, it ?may be necessary to engage in civil disobedience.? Instead of protesting the bloodshed and tyranny perpetrated by the Viet Cong, he condemned America-the very nation that was trying to bring ?justice and equality? to Vietnam.193 Evidently, King’s wife, Coretta Scott King, must have felt the same way. She accompanied a delegation of women to Hanoi.194

The late Black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall lambasted King for his anti-Vietnam tactics. ?If he [King] is trying to line the civil rights struggle with Vietnam,? said Marshall, ?he is leading the movement in the wrong direction. I do not believe he speaks for the majority of civil rights leaders or the majority of Negroes.?195

It is quite amusing to read King’s rantings about communism. Although he often tried to make it sound as if he denounced communism, he fully supported it. Since he often advocated the support of communism, his strategy of denouncing it verbally (when in front of a public audience) but supporting it physically worked brilliantly. That is why communist groups always supported him. In one speech, he actually condemned communism, possibly with the hope that it would vindicate him from any wrong-doing. Further, by delivering a speech filled with such double-talk, he ostensibly gave loyal Americans, who would not tolerate his activities if they knew what his hidden agenda truly was, the feeling that he was also loyal and, merely, misunderstood. In one speech, King promulgated:

?We must not call everyone a communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations and who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problem of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-communism but, rather, in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take action in behalf of justice. We must, with positive action, seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice which are the fertile soil in which communism grows and develops.?196 King was absolving himself from his actions. King openly supported Red China’s admission to the U.N.; that is why he did not want people calling ?everyone a communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations.? And, anyone that disagreed with him was simply full of ?hate and hysteria,? not sound reasoning, King claimed. King said that Americans should ?not engage in a negative anti-communism.? Although the wording is, basically, a double-negative (similar to that of a child saying, ?I don’t want no food?), his message is quite apparent: People should not criticize communists. Much like a fox running through a stream to rid itself of its scent so that the hound dogs would not catch it, King was hoping to befuddle his enemies-non-communists, non-militants, and non-activists (in other words, people who work for a living)-and enlist their aid. Contrary to King’s thesis, America was engaging in a ?positive thrust for democracy?; it was King who wanted the communist government in Vietnam left alone. And, in America, he wanted his own brand of ?positive action? to be adminstered to end the disparities in our nation-namely, more government intervention to be administered at his discretion. As King continued his speech, out of the same breath, he stated: ?These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression[;] and[,] out of the wombs of a frail world[,] new systems of justice and equality are being born. . . . We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries.?197 King constantly complained that both he and his cohorts were ?exploited? and ?oppressed.? Was he trying to get something across-perhaps, a threat to American culture-when he suggested that ?men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression?? It is amusing how he stated, ?We in the West . . .? Earlier in his diatribe, King stated that America ?fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long.? Ironically, several paragraphs later in his speech, he felt that he was part of this same ?deadly Western arrogance.?

If there was ever any doubt about King’s true allegiances, it is revealed by one of his own sentences: ?We in the West must support these revolutions.? King never cared for the American soldiers dying in Vietnam; he only cared for the Viet Cong’s revolution. In King’s speech, he said that America should not fear communism, but why should not Americans have a ?morbid fear of communism?? Communism was responsible for countless millions of deaths under the dictatorship of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and other such disgusting characters. As for him accusing Americans of being the ?arch anti-revolutionaries,? Americans were hardly that. The purpose of the intervention was to help the Vietnamese, residing in the southern part, so that they would not have to bear the evils associated with the dictatorship of communism.

King’s speech inflamed all the patriotic organizations across the U.S. Malcolm Tarlov, who was the national commander of the Jewish War Veterans, chided King for giving that speech. Tarlov said that King’s speech was ?an ignorance of the facts, pandering to Ho Chi Minh, and an insult to the intelligence of all Americans.?198 Tarlov probably felt that way because of all the baseless lies that King said, which seemingly came straight from the Viet Cong’s party-line. King even went to the extent of suggesting that America’s part in the Vietnam War was similar to the Nazis testing ?new medicines and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe.?199 Tarlov felt that King’s speech was irresponsible: ?It is indeed sad that so respected a national leader [King] should have voiced his dissent so irresponsibly. His speech could have been written in North Vietnam.?200 And, it may have been. King’s speech was filled with all types of other asinine lies: ?We poison their water. . . . We kill a million acres of their crops. . . . We may have killed a million of them-mostly children. . . . They see the soldiers selling their sisters, soliciting their mothers.?201 Throwing in a comment to relate it to his civil rights war, King said one more flagrant lie: ?Twice as many Negroes as whites are in combat.?202

Senator Thomas Dodd, D-Conn., noted that Martin Luther King, Jr., was aiding the enemies of the United States. Senator Dodd correctly noted that King was calling ?for the admission of Red China to the United Nations? and demanding ?that the United States commit itself to negotiate with the Viet Cong?; and, King felt that, implied Senator Dodd, the ?United States [should] reorient its policy along the lines of accommodation with communism.?203 Continuing, Senator Dodd proclaimed: ?Dr. King has since announced that he will write letters within the next 10 days to the President of North Vietnam and the leaders of the governments of Communist China and the Soviet Union. If Dr. King carries on a correspondence with foreign governments, it could run counter to the provisions of the Logan act, a Federal statute which says, `Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than three years or both.’?204 Who did King think that he was? He had no right and no authority to make negotiations, pacts, agreements, or even discuss the war with the communist leadership whom America was battling. It seems quite evident that King was assisting the Viet Cong by his speeches in the U.S. and, consequentially, hurting U.S. soldiers stationed in Vietnam. During the heated debates that took place over America’s policy with the Vietnam War, Joseph O’Meara, the dean of Notre Dame university’s law school and an activist in the American Civil Liberties Union, felt that ?irreparable harm? was being done to the civil rights movement. ?For the most part,? O’Meara said, ?I am persuaded the objectors are either Communists, or traitors, or cowards.? Continuing, O’Meara could not help but notice that King and one of his associates, Carmichael, ?weep only for the enemy.?205 King’s alliances should have been clear to everyone; yet people still fell for his double-talk, since he was an articulate spokesman. An excellent example of King’s gift for double-talk was his response to some clergymen who called him an ?extremist.?206 Rather than disagree with the clergymen, King admitted to being an ?extremist? but said it in such a way that he likened himself to ?Jesus Christ? and said that the world was in ?dire need? of his ?creative? extremism: ?The question is not whether we are extremists but what kind of extremists we will be. . . . In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified for the same crime-the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. So, after all, maybe the South, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.?207

King had no problem voicing his feelings for the Viet Cong. But, for some odd reason, he never seemed to speak badly of their actions, even when they tortured the South Vietnamese. Where were King’s complaints about the 2,429 Vietnamese citizens who were killed between July 1965 and December 1966 by the Viet Cong?208 Where was King’s condemnation when the U.S. troops discovered an atrocity at a mountain village 15 miles east of Pleiku on August 24, 1965: ?. . . [T]he Viet Cong had just executed the aged village chief and his youngest son. The village chief’s wife was still alive, but the Viet Cong had tortured her by carving flesh from her body and cutting her arms. . . .?209 Why did King, who claimed to be a man of peace, not complain when ?Viet Cong guerrillas . . . kidnapped an entire village of men, women, and children in an unprecedented act of terrorism.?210

Why did King only condemn America-the very nation that was attempting to liberate the South Vietnamese from the communist dictatorship of the Viet Cong? To accurately answer the aforementioned questions, you have to understand the word ?peace? and how it is used by communists. Like the deceptive names that communists have used for their organizations, they also try to disguise their true intentions by throwing in honorable words like ?peace,? ?justice,? ?liberty,? et cetera in their sentences-words that make their reasoning seem wholesome to those not aware of their ulterior motives. The communists have been doing that for quite some time and are proficient at it.

On April 1, 1951, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) released a report: The Communist ?Peace? Offensive: A Campaign to Disarm and Defeat the United States. The report said, ?The most dangerous hoax ever devised by the international Communist conspiracy is the current world-wide `peace’ offensive.?211 In the report, the HCUA noted that the communists have ?boldly seized upon the word `peace’ in an effort to secure moral sanction for its own aggressive designs. To achieve this, Communists must at the same time portray [their] victims and intended victims as being ruled by imperialist warmongers and `war criminals.’?212 In short, the communists decided that the best way to disarm their enemies-the people of America who found the communist ideology to be insipid-was to propagandize the peace-line so stridently that Americans would embrace it. The communist goal was simple: disarm the enemy from within. After all, an head-on attack would have been disastrous for any communist nation or any group working within America. The Communist Party, U.S.A., in their so-called ?Spring Mobilization for Peace? on April 15, 1967, said, ?We are now approaching a moment in which the fight for peace can develop into the greatest grass roots movement this country has seen in more than a quarter of a century? (emphasis added).213 Evidently, they did not realize that ?fight? and ?peace? are opposites. Unfortunately, their movement did, indeed, become the ?greatest grass roots movement this country has seen? and now has numerous organizations that it created sowing the seeds of decadence.

King was familiar with the double-talk that the Communist Party espoused as their party-line and used it to his benefit wherever he went. For instance, when King attended the hundredth anniversary for the black communist W.E.B. DuBois, King was quoted as having said the following: ?Our irrational obsession with anti-communism has led us into many quagmires. Dr. DuBois will be with us when we go to Washington to demand our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.?214 King and his comrades were not being deprived of ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.? Nor did King or any of his comrades (like the communist Jack O’Dell, who also attended the event) have an ?irrational obsession with anti-communism?; it seems that the only ?irrational obsession? was their belief in communism, going to celebrate the life of a man who was a self-admitted communist and who hated the U.S during his life. King’s activities upset quite a few people in the government-at least, the ones who were not fooled by King’s articulate double-talk. King’s double-talk led to J. Edgar Hoover calling King ?the most notorious liar in the country.?215 Hoover never changed his mind about King. King and Hoover became at odds with one another because of King’s anti-American activities. Also, former President Harry Truman did not like King’s tactics. Truman said King was a ?troublemaker.?216 Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio was perturbed over King’s subversive activities. Congressman Ashbrook noted that King was ?disloyal to the United States.?217 Continuing his statement, Congressman Ashbrook stated: ?[King] maligned his country with lies and accusations that come straight from the Communist Party line. . . . He praised Ho Chi Minh as the only true leader of the Vietnamese people. He condemned the United States as the `greatest purveyor of violence in the world today’ and likened our nation to Hitler’s Germany. He condemned the late President Diem as `one of the most vicious modern dictators’ and threw out wild charges like the United States may have killed one million children in Vietnam.?218

King’s involvement in foreign affairs extended beyond just the ideology of communism, beyond talking on behalf of communists in Vietnam-beyond meeting and conspiring with communists the world-over. King was so involved with foreign affairs that he accepted money from some pretty shady characters. Some of these shady characters were from other countries, which were not too friendly with America’s democratic form of government. In other words, King was working against the government of the United States of America and was paid for it.

The Washington Observer Newsletter disclosed King’s ties to communism, noting that an FBI report existed on him. The evidence that was contained in the report, which our government has kept from the general public, had some shocking revelations, according to the Washington Observer. The Observer said: ?. . . [W]hen the F.B.I. agents had King under surveillance, they observed him meet a well-identified Soviet espionage agent at the Kennedy Airport in New York. They also secured evidence that King was receiving large sums of money from a well-known American Communist agent who gives King instructions that he implicitly obeys.?219 Stanley Levison was one of King’s colleagues. Levison was often described as King’s ?money man?; he was King’s closest White associate.220 J. Edgar Hoover said that Levison was a Soviet spy and member of the Communist Party, U.S.A. The late President John Kennedy informed King that Levinson was ?dangerous? in a meeting, hoping that King would stop meeting with Levison and other communists before something happened.221

During a raid of the SCEF, a check was found. The check, which had been endorsed by King, was from the communist James Dombrowski and was made out to King.222 On the check, dated March 7, 1963, there was a little note written that told why the money was given: ?New York expenses.?223 Apparently, Dombrowski was paying King for expenses that King incurred during his battle with the American government. King often used the Vietnam War as a means of raising money. He had the protesters send him money. Congressman O. C. Fisher of Texas complained about King’s money-making activities. Congressman Fisher noted that King had ?had turned to a crusade in favor of the communists in Vietnam as a means of raising money.?224 Describing King’s activities, Congressman Fisher stated: ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] has turned to a crusade in favor of the Communists in Vietnam as a means of raising money. He recently said that he was shooting for $700,000. In aiding the communists, he has bitterly denounced the U.S. . . . ?King has been both brazen and open in his violations of the law. And he is joined by more than a score of other sick minds and corrupt souls. . . . ?The American people want to know-and they have a right to know-when is the Department of Justice going to crack down on these disloyal elements in our society? These mercenary crackpots should be shown no mercy. They have gone far beyond the realm of normal dissent. They are actively aiding the Communist aggressors in Vietnam, while violating the laws of their own country.?225

Congressman Fisher was right. We, the American people, did-and still do!-have a right to know when this affront to our liberties will end. Only by standing up and being counted will the barrage of lies that have been foisted upon us end. And then-and only then-will we be able to rid ourselves of the lies that have separated this nation from its course. We have a right to see the FBI files on King that the courts closed. The time has come to demand that right. A stop must be put to the politically correct historical revisionists, who have distorted history to unprecedented lengths in order to make their motives seem wholesome. This needs to be done, for what occurred after King’s death is a national disgrace. In France, there is an age-old adage: ?Le roi est mort, vive le roi!? It means, ?The king is dead, long live the king.? The saying makes an appropriate title for this chapter for three reasons: 1.) It was not until after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s death that few dared to speak the truth about his nefarious activities. 2.) The adage is fitting because of a chant that black eulogizers exclaimed after King was convicted for leading the Montgomery bus-boycott: ?Behold the King! Long live the King!?226 3.) After King’s death, many of his tenets that he believed and promoted have become accepted, living long past his life. After King was killed by James Earl Ray, King’s image changed; people tend not to speak bad of the dead, especially the same people who were worried about being victimized by all the riots that broke out afterwards. It seems that very few politicians would discuss King’s activities after his death. The politicians probably did not want to upset the rioters who quickly destroyed the cities after King’s death.227 Perhaps, the politicians felt that if they did discuss King’s activities, it might have made the riots worse (if that was possible).

Also, some politicians were probably fearful of losing the African-American bloc vote in the cities. However, there were a few bold politicians. Congressman Tuck said: ?Although it is conceded that [King] openly advocated nonviolence, he fomented discord and strife between the races. Violence followed in his wake wherever he went, North or South, until he himself fell a victim to violence. He who sows the seed of sin shall reap and harvest a whirlwind of evil. I believe with the Bible that he who takes up the sword shall also perish by the sword. ?This victim of murder preached compliance only with the laws he approved of and thus was in contempt of statutes not to his liking. Hence, he and his followers, in a most brazen and flagrant manner, flouted the time-honored concepts of this Nation, which is one of laws and not of men. ?In one of his last public utterances, he openly stated that he intended to violate a solemn court injunction. At the same time, he was planning to invade Washington [D.C.] with a horde of the hosts of evil, to disrupt and stay the wheels of the Government of the United States. Every sensible person knows, as he himself must have known, that such an act would result in wholesale property destruction, bloodshed, and death to this beleaguered city. ?This man trampled upon the laws of our country with impunity, and the Stokely Carmichaels and the Rap Browns were spawned in the waters of hate agitated by his public utterances.? 228

The American flag flew at ?half-mast to [honor] a man who aided and abetted the Communists of North Vietnam, as he publicly supported the draft card burners and sought to undermine and betray our fighting sons in Vietnam,? said Senator-elect Claude B. Duval of Houma, Louisiana.229 Continuing, Duval noted how ironic the whole ordeal was concerning King’s death: ?In the avalanche of propaganda, hypocrisy, and falsehood that followed the death of King, the President and national figures together with the news media have undertaken to eulogize and commit to martyrdom Martin Luther King [Jr.], who, under the guise of non-violence, caused violence wherever he went.

?The voice of truth is not heard in the land. All has been forgiven, all has been forgotten. None seem to remember that only the day before his death, King openly declared his intention to violate law and order-a federal court order. This was nothing new, since he had previously violated a federal court order. . . .

?We witness in our major cities looting, theft, burglary, arson, robbery, murder-all, indeed, a fitting tribute to an advocate of violence. ?I call upon all men, the responsible Negro community as well as the white to face the facts and truth and to dispel from all minds the falsehood and hypocrisy that have been visited upon us by our leaders and the news media. If the men who died in World War II, in Korea and Vietnam should return, they would cry out in horror at the eulogizing of a man who . . . aided and abetted the enemies of this nation, who preached disobedience of law and who incited violence and riot. ?I know I speak against the tide of overwhelming emotion . . . but let the voice of truth be heard in the land. If it is possible, let the voice of reason be heard. Then may the Negro and the white communities join together in a truthful and realistic effort to build a better society.? 230

The riots began-as they had before, as they did in ’92, and as they will again-and with the riots came the accompanying horror stories of rioters having their fun, laughing while they destroyed the cities.231 A total of 110 riots were reported in cities across the nation after King’s death, caused by a single, fanatical white. 75,000 National Guardsmen and federal troops were dispatched to stop the lawlessness of the rioters. Thirty-nine innocent people were killed in the aftermath.232 David Dominick, an attorney who was a legislative assistant to Senator Clifford Hansen, watched the horrid events unfold in Washington, D.C., and described what occurred: ?Reaction to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., last Thursday night created the worst crisis since the Civil War in the history of Washington, D.C. This morning, an uneasy truce settled over the Nation’s Capital [sic], but new violence could break out.

?This past weekend of infamy will be debated, discussed and cursed by many for months to come. . . . ?On Thursday night, four white youths stopped for gasoline at a service station in downtown Washington. They did not know that Dr. King had just been murdered in Memphis, but they were attacked by a gang of Negro youths. One of the whites was badly beaten and fatally stabbed. His companions fled with him in their car out of Washington, across the Potomac, and to a hospital in Virginia. The boy died, but the incident was little noted in the press. . . . ?On Thursday, grief at the death of Dr. King gripped all of `official Washington.’ On Friday, Senators, stockbrokers, workers-all flowed, as usual, into Washington from the suburbs. But by Friday afternoon, an awful fact confronted the people here. The city was on fire. ?First, black smoke, then ugly red flames could be seen from the upper floors of every government building in Washington-from the White House to the Capitol Building. . . . ?Firebombs burst in major stores of the downtown district, and the looters were off and running. ?Nervous office workers thought naturally first of their homes and second, how they might get there. . . . ?The U.S. Army troops were slow in being deployed, and the looters and firebombers went virtually unchecked. The press reported that in the city’s beautiful parks . . . young men jaunted up and down in front of admiring girls trying on this or that, stolen minutes before from fashionable men’s stores nearby. ?One reporter-friend of ours witnessed a white Cadillac pull in front of downtown jewelry store. Two men smashed the windows, stripped the store front of its tray of jewels, got into their car, drove slowly down into traffic, stopped at a red light next to a patrol car, waved to the officers and drove off as a cop on foot raced desperately to tell his fellow officers in their car of the crime. . . . ?The efficiency of the firebombers was chilling. First the windows were smashed, then the looters did their quick work and last came the fire bombs. . . . ?Earlier that day, the New York Times reported that newspapers in both London and Paris had immediately compared the assassination of Martin Luther King [Jr.] with that of John F. Kennedy. ?Before this, many Americans had obviously viewed Dr. King as a Negro leader, no matter how begrudgingly. Now, overnight, Europeans coached us into the realization that King was viewed in the world as one of our country’s greatest Americans.?233 There were some people who did not riot but, rather, mourned King’s death. It is interesting to take a look at some of the mourners who shared their sympathy when King was assassinated. The front-page of the Communist Party, U.S.A.’s publication Worker for April 14, 1968, had a story that noted some of King’s former comrades: ?Henry Winston, National Chairman of the Communist Party, U.S.A., led a six-men party delegation to the funeral of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Tuesday in Atlanta [Georgia]. The other representatives were Claude Lightfoot, Mickey Lima of San Francisco, Charlene Mitchell of Los Angeles, Arnold Johnson, and Gil Green.?

The Soviet Union’s youth, student, and peace organizations and trade unions sent messages of sympathy, too. Memorial meetings took place all over the Soviet Union: factories, halls, and theatres-even Moscow University. Artists and ?intellectuals? paid tribute to King at the Friendship House, which was held by the Soviet-American Friendship Society and the Soviet Peace Committee. James Jackson, the leader of the American Communist Party, was, of course, one of the speakers at the Friendship House.234

The Soviet Peace Committee even went to the extent of sending the Southern Christian Leadership Conference a letter on behalf of some of the communists. They expressed their indignation over King’s death: ?The hearts of the Soviet people are filled with pain and anger at the monstrous crime of American racists.?235

Throughout the communist bastion came condolences. Waldeck Rochet, general secretary of the French Communist Party, made certain that his regrets were known. Poland’s ?Peace Committee? sent condolences to Coretta King, according to the April 9, 1968, edition of the Worker. Also, the Worker noted that William Patterson, secretary of the Negro Department of the Communist Party, U.S.A., sent a telegram to Coretta King, wishing her the best: ?Tonight we will join with all progressive mankind in expressing the deep pain and anguish at the monstrous assassination of your illustrious husband.? It is not too surprising that there was an article in the same issue, entitled, ?Dr. King’s Legacy-`FULFILL IT!’ COMMUNISTS DEMAND.? In that article, there is reference to a march that King planned on attending before his death: ?The Poor People’s March upon Washington must not falter. It must take place in greater numbers than even previously planned.?236

Not too long after King’s death, the Poor People’s March took place in Washington, D.C. The march supposedly had one purpose: to obtain more government benefits at the expense of taxpayers. U.S. Representative Samuel Devine from Ohio, quoting an Ohio newspaper that described members of the Poor People’s March who made a pit-stop in Ohio, noted: ?What has been reported as-and what may have started as-a massed effort to obtain more federal aid, looks in reality like a black power movement, if those passing through Columbus [Ohio] are at all typical.

?First inkling of the attitudes of the guests came when black power chants drifted through open bus windows behind police escorts. . . .

?Many wore African type garb or sweatshirts emblazoned with `Soul Brother,’ `Soul Sister,’ `Milwaukee NAACP Youth Council,’ and `Black Power.’?237

The Poor People’s March must have been a sight to behold. There were many bitter protesters. Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy was wearing one of the marchers’ armbands that read, ?Mississippi G-d Damn?-such a devout Christian he must have been.

One white person made the mistake of protesting the peace-loving protesters and experienced the love that the demonstrators had. The white person had a sign that read, ?I am fighting poverty. I work! Have you tried it??-his mistake. He was stabbed and hospitalized by those peace-loving demonstrators.238

Hosea Williams, the march co?rdinator, shared the feelings that the marchers held: ?By the time we’re through in D.C., white folks gonna say, `Where’s Dr. King? Wake up Dr. King!’ These white folks killed the dreamer, but we’re gonna show these white folks what become of the dream. The poor people are marching to challenge the Pharaoh.?239 Rev. Abernathy, who became head of the SCLC after King’s assassination, had an article published in the April 16, 1968, edition of the Worker. In the article, he was quoted as saying the typical communist-harangue in a speech-?that the nation’s problem was not black meanness but white `sickness.’ The sickness is a `contagious disease’ . . . a disease `created by a capitalistic society’ and `brought here by none other than the white man.’?240

Congressman Buchanan, speaking before the House, succinctly promulgated who benefited from King’s assassination: ?The hand that gunned down Martin Luther King [Jr.] served the world Communist cause well, and no other cause I know. . . .?241 Certainly, the people who hold those beliefs did benefit from King’s death by the acceptance of their views by more people in society. With all of this being fully known by some of the people in our government, it is amazing that they would actually support and advocate Michael King’s birthday-bash. In Arizona, it eventually passed after a mass propaganda campaign was released upon the unsuspecting populace. The first time that the people had an opportunity to vote on the King holiday, the good people refused it for, at least, a couple reasons: some knew of King’s sordid past; others did not feel it necessary to have another government-paid holiday (which was paid with the people’s taxes, of course).

Because the good people of Arizona originally decided against the Michael King holiday, other groups awarded blacks with an ?offer of $200,000 in minority scholarships to the universities of Louisville and Alabama,? according to Newsweek. ?The largesse was designed to make amends for Arizona voters’ refusal last month to approve a Martin Luther King holiday.?242 Ironically, it took an African-American, Michael Williams, to complain about the ordeal. Evidently, most whites were too cowardly to protest-or were too uninformed to protest-and no one paid much attention to the few who did, probably assuming that those complaining were merely ignorant when nothing would have been further from the truth.

The people of Arizona quickly learned that they would be punished for their decision not to have a King holiday. The 1993 Super Bowl would be taken out of Arizona because of the people’s failure to enact a King holiday. Numerous other groups were also considering boycotting the state of Arizona, including the National League of Cities, the Episcopalian national convention, and National Urban League. Bob Rose, who led opponents of the bill for a King Day, said: ?The only thing, legally, they can do is have a referendum in 1992. . . . And it’ll get defeated two to one, straight up and down.? Unfortunately, he was wrong; the good people of Arizona, unknowing of the full scope of King’s activities, decided to have the King holiday; football was on. Sister Souljah, the militant rapper who once suggested that blacks should take a week to kill whites (who President Clinton used to help him become elected), was asked about how she felt about ?Dr. King? in a brief interview with the magazine Life. She said that she feels the image of King is not correct: ?People who are in power in white America have twisted the image of Dr. King to take out the sting of who he was.?243 Many others seem to echo her opinion. Although she may be wrong about a lot of things, she appears to be right about that. Evan Mecham, the former governor of the state of Arizona (and a white man who has not ?twisted the image of Dr. King to take out the sting of who[m] he was?), was asked what he thought about Martin Luther King, Jr., in the magazine Life. He said that the government should not ?demote? George Washington and Abraham Lincoln’s holiday-namely, President’s Day-while elevating King’s holiday. He felt that if King had lived, he ?probably would have gone downhill, substantially,? said Mecham. ?Without his assassination, I doubt he would have ever had the credibility.?244 Very few people speak badly of the dead. New Hampshire, just like Arizona, was one of the few states that did not have a day for King-that is, until the ?avalanche of propaganda.? In 1993, New Hampshire finally agreed to have a Martin Luther King Jr. celebration, joining Arizona and the 48 other American states in the celebration. About the same time, Jesse Jackson received the prestigious King Peace Prize for his work.245 One Black columnist, Barbara Reynolds of USA Today, suggests that Americans need ?Kingology?-what she calls ?King’s non-violent moral code? of ?love of others, love of self, black pride and human concern?-today.246 ?Black pride?-from where did that come? (You have to wonder how she would feel if white columnists started to say that whites need ?white pride??)

Two black activists-Lenora Fulani, who was running for governor of New York on the New Alliance Party ticket, and Al Sharpton-pitched tents on Liberty Island, forcing the Statue of Liberty to be closed. They did that to commemorate Martin Luther King Jr.’s ?I Have a Dream? speech. In a rally at Battery Park City, Fulani shared her own dreams: ?We want to rename New York City, Martin Luther King City.?

Besides having streets, holidays, and numerous other things named after him, Martin Luther King, Jr., now has a game named after him: King-O. The game was invented by Shirley Barnes, who is an Afro-American, in the late 1970s. It is similar to bingo, except that there are words used instead of numbers. The words, as can be expected, are all noble: ?family, home, humble, respect, Nobel, peace,? and ?prize.? Ms. Barnes said, ?The first word on the list is love, because that’s what Dr. King was about.? The game even comes with ideas for teachers so that they may use the game for history lessons or for ?resolving conflicts peacefully.?247 You have to wonder how students can ?resolve conflicts peacefully? by using King’s tactics. Numerous organizations have held rallies in which King’s name is revered and used as a call to peace. This seems strange, with all of the known instances of King flagrantly disobeying the law. However, many of the rallies end in violence or promote more preferential treatment for blacks; so, in that respect, there is a bit of similarity between King’s ideology and that of his followers. About thirty years after King led the so-called civil rights marches in Washington, D.C., his disciples had another March on Washington. The march-which was held by gay-rights activists, socialists, and vagabonds, among others-had Coretta Scott King speak before them. She exclaimed to the unique crowd: ?Dr. King’s spirit is with us! Yes it is!? The crowd, which was estimated at three-hundredths of one percent of America’s population, responded to King’s widow: ?Free at last! Free at last! Thank God almighty, we’re free at last!?248

Other people of notoriety either spoke or attended the rally. Ben Chavis, who was the president of the NAACP at the time, spoke there and shared his demands with the unique crowd. ?We want more than fair treatment; we want a fair share of the economy,? said Chavis, reiterating the demands that the civil rights advocates have held for so long.249 Rosa Parks, Jesse Jackson, and Attorney General Janet Reno also attended the event.250 In an effort to combat White heterosexuals, Chavis’s NAACP enlisted the help of all homosexuals: ?Our board approved a stand on gay-rights several months ago,? said Chavis. ?It was a unanimous decision.?251 Chavis is not new to controversy, though. After being implicated in the fire-bombing of Mike’s Grocery Store, Chavis, eight other blacks, and a white woman were sent to prison in 1972. (Several blacks testified in court that Chavis had used a church as his Civil Rights Headquarters to plan the attack.) In 1979, North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt-at the behest of his black voters-granted Chavis clemency. After Chavis was freed, he went to work for the National Alliance Against Racism and Political Repression, which was one of the U.S. Communist Party’s fronts, as the co-chairman. (Charlene Mitchell, a Black woman who was the Communist Party presidential candidate for 1968, served as the co-chairwoman of the group at the time.)

Since then, Chavis has befriended many people in his visits to communist nations. Chavis’s wife, Martha Rivera, was a translator for Angola’s communist government when Chavis met her. After Benjamin Chavis became head of the NAACP, he swiftly chose Don Rojas as his communications director. Apparently, Rojas had the qualifications that Chavis had hoped to find: Rojas had worked as Maurice Bishop’s press-secretary, during the time that Bishop headed Grenada’s communist government. At one of the NAACP conventions that Chavis attended, he raised his clinched fist in what appeared to be a Black Panther/Marxist salute with a good friend of his, Nelson Mandela. It seems that Chavis likes the idea of redistributing people’s money. (Chavis was eventually ousted from the NAACP for making a sexual misconduct settlement without the board of directors knowing about it.) However, none of this should be too surprising when you consider the NAACP’s history. You can probably be sure that whoever replaces Chavis will have similar qualifications. Chavis is hardly the only civil rights’ advocate to support the acceptance of sodomy. When Clinton was appointed President, one of the first things he did was to invite his homosexual friends to participate in the festivities. To make his inaugural party the focal-point of deviancy, President Clinton had the Gay and Lesbian Bands of America participate in the party.252 The video Gay Rights, Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda, which appears to have been made by some racial minorities who were concerned about losing their special privileges (or, as some of them in the video say, ?full minority status?), shows actual footage of the 1993 March on Washington, including the homosexuals’ plans.253 A militant homosexual began his speech before the assemblage by paraphrasing King-a fitting tribute. Another homosexual, who was at the 1993 March on Washington, had a sign that declared, ?Civil Rights or Civil War!? Clinton expressed his thanks (for the $3.5 million the homosexuals contributed to his campaign) via a videotape which was shown on a large screen television at the homosexuals’ festivities. President Clinton said, ?I just want to thank the gay and lesbian community for their courage.?254 One lesbian commented, ?It’s our government now. It’s our government now.?255 Another one said, ?Clinton is a friend of ours, and he’s going to take care of all gay and lesbian rights. And he’s going to shake up the country.?256

During the homosexuals’ festivities in Washington, D.C., some transvestites had strip shows. As the transvestites threw their clothes around in the air, the innocent children of homosexuals-many of whom were probably adopted-stood by crying, with tears running down their cheeks.257 Members of the North American Man-Boy Lover Association attended the event as well. The innocent children of the U.S. are suffering and being prevented the right to a peaceful existence because of this abomination, which was born in the so-called ?civil rights? movement of King.

The homosexuals had a list of demands, which they called ?human rights,? that they made. They wanted these demands to be added as a Constitutional amendment. The following is a summary of some of their demands: 1.) All forms of sexual expression would be allowed;

2.) All laws prohibiting sodomy would be abolished;

3.) All laws that prohibited certain types of unusual clothing (or lack of clothing) would be gone; 4.) All age of sexual consent laws would be repealed, thereby allowing homosexuals to have sex with whatever child they choose; 5.) Money from the government’s War Department would be diverted to cover the cost of medical expenses for homosexuals with AIDS; 6.) Taxes would be used to pay for sex-change operations, allowing more homosexuals to parade in their surgical disguise;

7.) Homosexuals in all areas of the U.S. would be allowed to adopt children or provide foster care for them, which, combined with the homosexuals’ fourth desire, would allow them to adopt and commit sodomy with any child available for adoption; 8.) Homosexual marriages would be permitted in any area that does not accept it; 9.) Homosexuals would be accepted in designing education for children, in making child care, and for providing school counseling in areas in which they are not currently allowed; 10.) Contraceptives and abortion would be provided to all people for free-no matter what the person’s age and, in the case of a very young person, without the person’s parents’ approval; 11.) Artificial insemination would be allowed for any bisexual or lesbian woman who wanted to have children so that she could raise them in that type of lifestyle (which would allow the lesbian to teach the children to hate men);

12.) No religious concerns of homosexuality would be allowed, with religious institutions losing their tax-exempt status if they did not comply; and, 13.) Private groups, like the Cub Scouts, must accept homosexuals into their groups.258 In Atlanta, Georgia, a rally was held for King on January 18, 1993. Jean-Bertrand Aristide (Haiti’s ousted president), Jesse Jackson, and Coretta Scott King attended the rally, along with about 1,100 other people. Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter, the Rev. Bernice King, officiated the ceremony at Ebenezer Baptist Church. In the course of her discussion, she referred to her father as a ?prophet.? She said, ?It’s time for those of us who have benefited from the message and the mission of the Prophet King to come together and make his spirit come alive again in our midst.?259 At other places, similar activities occurred on that cold, January day in 1993. In Denver, Colorado, some of Martin Luther King Jr.’s followers were engaged in a rally. The rally quickly turned into a party. Some of those in attendance smashed a liquor store’s window (to get the party supplies), while others beat a white woman until she was unconscious (their idea of the party).

New Hampshire Governor Steve Merrill gave an order that changed the name of Civil Rights Day to King Day for his state. And, not too surprisingly, marches occurred in various places, like Phoenix, Arizona, to celebrate King’s birthday.260

After the Rodney King verdict, hundreds of students in Atlanta, the hometown of Martin Luther King Jr., had a march. Mayor Maynard Jackson pleaded with the students: ?Let us not discredit the name of Martin Luther King, not in his hometown. . . . Don’t try to tear this city up.?261 Although the two sentences were a contradiction-since Martin Luther King Jr. himself often provoked riots and ?trying to tear [Atlanta] up,? certainly, would not ?discredit? his name-the underlying message to the black students was understood: Please do not loot, burn, and destroy the city of Atlanta. The mayor’s begging was an effort in futility. The nubians (just another name for African-Americans) smashed store windows, threw stones and bottles, and assaulted white pedestrians-but certainly did not ?discredit the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.? King’s legacy lives. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s descendants are still quite active. Martin Luther King III-or should it be Michael King III(?)-was a bit upset when he ran for an office in Georgia. He hoped to become chairman of the Fulton County Commission in 1993. The newspaper Atlanta Constitution predicted that he would win by a two-to-one margin. Another candidate beat him by almost 15,000 votes (about 15 percent of all votes cast).

His mom, Coretta Scott King, broke down in tears and cried, ?How could the people vote down the King??

Indeed, why would ?people vote down the King? when there is plenty of pro-King propaganda disseminating from every corner of American culture? Even though Martin Luther King III may not be as charismatic and articulate as his father, his name still carries some weight with those who accept falsehoods without question. King III was involved in a problem with the IRS, which may have had an effect on the voters’ decision. He reportedly did not pay the IRS some money in taxes; honest citizens call it tax-evasion. He settled the dispute by borrowing $150,000 from his mom, which he promptly gave to the IRS.

Martin Luther King, Jr., has become an internationally celebrated figure. Shortly after King’s death, Congressman John R. Rarick from Louisiana, speaking before the House of Representatives, said that Martin Luther King, Jr., was the ?United Nations’ proclaimed messiah.?262 Rarick could not understand why some of the politicians attended King’s funeral. After all, said Rarick, King was ?a disloyal American linked with over 60 organizations intent on the destruction of America.?263 Congressman Rarick had a good reason for calling King the ?United Nation’s proclaimed messiah.? King once said: ?I would strengthen a channel already in existence . . . I would work to bring about universal disarmament and set up a world police force through the United Nations. . . . I would also consider some form of world government.?264

King was not the only prominent spokesman to promote some type of bizarre ?world government.? There have been others that believe the United Nations should be used for things other than resolving disputes among different nations through peaceful means-rather than violent conflicts-which is why the U.N. was created. Some of the members of the U.N. appear to be power-hungry and want to be able to control the actions of different nations, thinking that they are some worldly congress instead of the professional mediators that they are. It appears that some of the members of the U.N. believe that they can control, encourage, and regulate what people do.265 Today, King has become an internationally celebrated figure among blacks. In South Africa, Martin Luther King, Jr., is revered by blacks there. ?The tradition of civil disobedience is now commonly associated with Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., though they are not its originators,? said Mokgethi Motlhabi, a black South African writer who is sympathetic to the African National Congress (ANC), then headed by Nelson Mandela.266 Just as the U.S. had riots under King’s leadership-and still continues to have sporadic riots under the guidance of others-South Africa experiences similar violence. ?As far as the ANC is concerned, there is no doubt that it did spend some days preparing its following for nonviolent action,? said Motlhabi.267 During the course of nonviolence, modeled after King’s nonviolent tactics in America, riots occurred, as you might expect. The African National Congress has a very similar history to communist groups that operated in America. The Communist Party and the ANC worked hand-in-hand with each other in South Africa. However, when the Communist Party in South Africa was banned, the members did not just quit. Mokgethi Motlhabi described what happened: ?Some African communists were joint members of the ANC and the Communist Party before the latter was banned in South Africa. Naturally, when the party was outlawed, these people became exclusive members of the ANC unless otherwise affected.?268 It should come as no surprise that when the ANC and South African Communist Party were no longer banned, large rallies were held. People were carrying the sickle and hammer flag. One person held a sign that said, ?Welcome ANC/Communist Party. Mandela must rule our country now, today!?269 It should come as no surprise that Mandela has called Fidel Castro, Moammar Kaddafi, and Yasser Arafat each ?a comrade in arms,? since they ?support our struggle to the hilt.?270 Nor should it come as a surprise that one of the ANC’s former leaders, a very popular black named Chris Hani, was head of the Communist Party there.271 Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (whose middle name means ?someone who brings trouble upon himself?) was a leader of the Umkhonto We Sizwe, a group that engaged in terrorist attacks against whites in the South African government.272 The head of the African National Congress Youth League has asked his followers to kill former South African President de Klerk. Michael Johns of the Heritage Foundation described Nelson Mandela and the ANC: ?Hitting civilian targets and refusing to renounce the use of violence against civilians for political purposes makes the ANC a terrorist group, and Mandela has not distanced himself from that policy even when asked specifically to do so.?273 So, it should come as no surprise that-much like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bishop Desmond Tutu-Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize. ?The Nobel Prize is a tribute to all South Africans,? said Mandela.274 You have to wonder how the Nobel Peace Prize committee interprets the word ?peace.? Many Blacks in South Africa preferred to have self-determination rather than Mandela’s government.275 Mangope, who was a leader of a black homeland, begged whites to help him stop a revolution by the African National Congress and Communist Party. About 5,000 whites came to assist him in that goal. But, Mangope had already been captured. Some whites were seen by the black police. The whites got out of their car and laid on the ground, hoping to avoid trouble. As the whites were on the ground, holding their hands up in the air, they were mercilessly shot in cold blood by a black police officer.276 This is the peace and justice that the African National Congress and the Communist Party give. Similar to King, Mandela seems to be quite proficient with double-talk. For instance, he says that his Freedom Charter ?is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state.? However, he states that his goal is for ?redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it provides for nationalisation of mines, banks, and monopoly industry.? In short, it seems as if his plans are to take away land from Whites, redistribute the land to his fellow blacks, and assume power over all businesses-the very essence of black socialism, which he says that his plan is not. However, he is quick to point out his foremost goal: ?The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism.?277 As the embittered white communists who are so foolhardy to follow Mandela’s lead may quickly learn, he probably has no intentions of allowing them to keep anything they currently own; and, as unfortunate as it may be, that may even include some of their lives, though Mandela claims that he will not ?drive the white man into the sea.? It will be interesting to see what happens. South Africa has a very similar history to that of the U.S. except for one difference: Whites are the minority rather than majority. (Actually, South Africa’s history is closer to the past history of San Domingo, once known as the ?crown jewel of the French empire,? but now known as Haiti, sans whites. Or, a more current comparison, it is similar to Rhodesia, which became Zimbabwe. Black Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe says to his fellow blacks, ?You may beat the whites, but do not kill them.? Of course, usually the whites are dispossessed of their farmland, beaten, and then killed any way. America’s immigration laws discriminate against white people, so the persecuted whites in Zimbabwe cannot come here, thank to the U.S. Immigration Service and the U.S. government’s laws.) It appears that Mandela’s views may not differ too much from those of the Nation of Islam. That should not be too surprising, since the Nation of Islam, whose newspaper The Final Call has a circulation of approximately 1 million, opened Nation of Islam Information Centers in different parts of Africa.278 In a speech that one of Farrakhan’s aides gave, he said that black South Africans should kill white people. The aide, Khallid Abdul Muhammad, said that before a crowd at Kean College in Union, N.J. He wanted black South Africans to ?kill everything white.?279 Though Khallid Muhammad is no longer an aide, he still preaches the kill-whitey theme song. ?We have achieved the seemingly impossible,? said Joe Slovo, a crazy white guy who helped Mandela achieve his goal and who just happened to be the chairman of the South African Communist Party.280 President Clinton said that he intends to double the amount of money given to South Africa. He felt that $160 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money ought to be used to help Mandela and his comrades.281 (The government finally decided to give them $600 million of U.S. taxes.) The U.S. Democratic Party had even sent some of Clinton’s lackeys-Stanley Greenburg and Frank Creer-to assist Mandela’s African National Congress.282 The aftereffects of King continue to have an adverse effect on America and other lands around the globe. Many misguided people do not fully understand the ramifications of following King’s beliefs; they continue to believe the foolhardy notion that King was an ethical man of nonviolence. And, of course, there are still some subversives who know how King’s actual tactics worked and have duplicated them.

Due to politically correct historical revisionists, King has been made into a figurehead-in some people’s words, a ?Prophet?-a person who is much different than the real Martin Luther King, Jr. However, when you take a look at the ?real? King, after sifting through the platitudinous pro-King propaganda, you begin to understand how this nation has been led astray from the concepts that made it great.

When you consider all the African-Americans who have contributed to this nation`s greatness, it seems that it might even be perceived as an insult to African-Americans for having named a holiday after King and not after an African-American who was conducive to this nation. To just cite one great African-American from which there are many to choose, look at the numerous contributions that were made by the botanist George Washington Carver. Why not name the holiday after him-a true man of peace whose many contributions go practically unnoticed? It seems as if it would be much more appropriate to honor Carver. I am only one and can only do only so much by myself. But with your help, by standing together against the lies and falsehoods that have separated this nation from its course, we can make a difference together. It will not be easy; I make no imaginary promises of something that can be accomplished on a weekend in between television shows. It may take a year or even several years; but it is something that should be done, that needs to be done, and that will be done. And when this is done, the King Holiday-and all the lies that have been built around it-will be rescinded.

Bibliography:

Footnotes 1 Louise Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr.: Dreams for a Nation (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1989), p. 9. 2 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p.E4309. 3 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p.12. Little Mike’s family obtained their wealth by selling stock in a Mexican mine that was reportedly ?fake, pure and simple,? said a writer for the Black newspaper Atlanta Independent in 1909. The Independent’s writer suggested that ?many thousands of poor Negroes are being defrauded throughout the state? by Daddy. Theodore Pappas, ?A Houdini of Time,? Chronicles (November 1992), p. 27. 4 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 12. 5 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p.14. 6 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 14. 7 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 16. Some people still continued to address Martin Luther King, Jr., as ?Mike? into the latter part of the 1950s. Keith D. Miller, Voice of Deliverance: The Language of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Its Sources (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 175. 8 Clayborne Carson, Malcolm X: The F.B.I. File (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 1991), p. 22.

9 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. Although King was intelligent for his age, the scores he attained on the Graduate Record Exam were-to put it mildly-not too good. King’s scores were below average in English and vocabulary. His other scores were similar: King scored in the bottom 33 percent on his advanced philosophy test; and his score in quantitative analysis was even lower, being in the lowest 10 percent. Theodore Pappas, ?A Houdini of Time,? Chronicles (November 1992), p. 28. 10 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4783. 11 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. 12 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. 13 Chronicles of the 20th Century (Prentice Hall Trade, 1987), p. 780. At another time, King reportedly suggested that parts of plantations that were owned by whites should be given to blacks by the government. Armando B. Rendon, Chicano Manifesto: The History and Aspirations of the Second Largest Minority in America (New York: Collier Books, 1971), pp. 160-161. 14 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 15 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13007. The late Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter said, ?If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny. One cannot preach nonviolence and, at the same time, advocate defiance of the law, whether it be a court order, a municipal ordinance, or a state or federal statute. For to defy the law is to invite violence, especially in a tense atmosphere involving many hundreds or thousands of people. To invite violence is to endanger one’s own life. And one cannot live dangerously always.? Congressional Record (April 18, 1968), p. E3062.

16 Congressional Record (October 12, 1965), p. A5739. 17 Congressional Record (April 11, 1967), p. A1743. 18 The Cincinnati Post (January 30, 1993), p. 2A 19 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13009, citing the Chicago Tribune (June 30, 1967).

20 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 21 Congressional Record (August 22, 1966), p. A4416. 22 Congressional Record (August 22, 1966), p. A4416. 23 Congressional Record (August 22, 1966), p. A4416. 24 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 25 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008-Congressman John Ashbrook of Ohio, citing the Baltimore Sun (July 10, 1966).

26 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 27 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 28 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4312. 29 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 30 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13009. 31 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 32 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 33 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 34 Congressional Record (November 17, 1967), p. H15539. 35 Congressional Record (November 17, 1967), p. H15539. 36 Congressional Record (November 17, 1967), p. H15539. 37 Congressional Record (November 17, 1967), p. H15539. 38 Congressional Record (November 17, 1967), p. H15539. 39 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 40 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13008. 41 Carson, Malcolm X, p. 26. 42 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13005. 43 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 44 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13015, citing Chicago Tribune (September 6, 1967).

45 Congressional Record, October 4, 1967, p. H13007. 46 Congressional Record, October 4, 1967, p. H13007. 47 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), pp. E4786, E4788; citing Louisiana Legislative Committee Hearings, Part II (March 6-9, 1957), pp. 203-208. 48 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13006. In one of King’s works, he went to the extent of using Lenin’s rhetoric: ?We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, lawbreaking. . . .? Keith D. Miller, Voice of Deliverance: The Language of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Its Sources (New York: Free Press, 1992), p. 102. 49 Congressional Record (June 15, 1967), p. S8277. 50 Congressional Record (July 12, 1967), p. H8580. 51 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13007. 52 Congressional Record (September 13, 1965), p. [S]22708. King was always getting arrested. When King was arrested for the fourteenth time, the police charged him with trespassing, intent to breach the peace, and conspiracy. Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. Many other groups have used the ?police brutality? complaints after committing violence. The neo-Muslims have a book called Police Brutality. In it, there is a discussion of how police want nothing more to do than beat up innocent blacks and other statements made to anger blacks. The book quotes a speech that Elijah Muhammad once gave: ?The brutality-POLICE BRUTALITY-against the so-called American Negro throughout America, from Gulf to Border and from coast to coast, in every city and town and village in America, and on the highways of America, we meet with this same enemy. A free force, a free enemy to go about over the country wherever he may find a Negro to try to provoke him in order to pour upon him beatings and death.? Nasir Makr Hakim, ed., Police Brutality (Cleveland: Secretarius, 1992), p. 3. With anger-inciting comments like that, is it any wonder that some African-Americans have such a bitter hatred towards the police? (Hakim, the editor of the former book that is a compilation of speeches given by the late-Elijah Muhammad of the Nation of Islam, has also written some other anger-inciting books, like Is God an Anti-Semite Too?) The Communist Party, U.S.A., has used similar tactics. In a report issued by the FBI, it mentions some early activities of how the communists attempted ?to fan the flames of discontent among the American people? during the Los Angeles riots of August 11-14, 1965. The report says that ?special efforts were to be made [by the Communist Party, U.S.A.] to play up the `police brutality’ angle.? 1967 FBI Appropriation; Testimony of J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations, February 10, 1966, p. 46. The New York City police commissioner said that when the ?police try to stop? riots, the rioters ?just yell `brutality.’ This is the pattern.? Edward Banfield, The Un-Heavenly City Revisited (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974), p. 220. 53 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 54 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 55 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), citing Newsweek (March 22, 1965).

56 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), citing the New York Times (February 24, 1964).

57 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p.E4750, citing Saturday Review (April 3, 1965).

58 U.S. News & World Report (May 11, 1992), p. 36. 59 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 60 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3005. 61 Ralph Abernathy, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).

62 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13014. Bayard Rustin was openly homosexual. He was the main organizer for King’s March on Washington, where King delivered his ?I Have a Dream? speech in 1963. Clarence Page, ?African-American Homophobia Is as Misguided as It Is Wrong,? The Cincinnati Post (February 10, 1994), p. 15A. Rustin’s views on riots were similar to those of King. In front of an audience in New York, Rustin said that riots were caused by ?merely a few confused Negro boys throwing stones in windows or a Molotov cocktail at a cop who was perfectly capable of ducking.? Edward Banfield, The Un-Heavenly City Revisited (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974), p. 220.

63 Ralph de Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover: The Man in His Time (New Rochelle, New York: Arlington House, 1973), p. 333. 64 For example, see the Testimony of John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations on February 10, 1966. In that report, he investigated the activities of the neo-nazis and various other white extremist groups along with the communists and anti-White groups. 65 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 303. 66 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 304. 67 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 303. 68 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 304. 69 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 331. 70 Toledano, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 332. 71 Carl Rowan, Breaking Barriers: A Memoir (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1991), p. 255. 72 Rowan, Breaking Barriers, p. 255. When Rowan was asked why he noted the alleged affair, he retorted, ?. . . [I]t’s not my job to protect anybody, not least or even Martin Luther King.? Birmingham Times (February 21, 1991), p. 2. 73 Tony Brown, ?The Worst Kind of Uncle Tom,? Birmingham Times (February 21, 1991).

74 Edgar S. Brightman, The Finding of God. 75 Martin Luther King, Jr., The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God. 76 Theodore Pappas, ?A Houdini of Time,? Chronicles (November 1992), pp. 26-30.

77 Theodore Pappas, ?Redefining Plagiarism,? Chronicles (September 1993), p. 42.

78 Theodore Pappas, ?Redefining Plagiarism,? Chronicles. (Pappas, the managing editor of the magazine Chronicles, is working on the book Martin Luther King, Jr., Plagiarism Story, which is a guaranteed shell-shocker, judging from some of his findings.) Keith D. Miller, an associate professor of English at Arizona State University, feels that King’s writings were merely ?blending,? ?alchemizing,? and ?voice mergings?-not acts of plagiarism. Miller, Voice of Deliverance. I encourage all students at Arizona State University to actively engage in ?voice mergings? in Miller’s class and to skillfully borrow others’ work. In that way, perhaps Miller will understand that they are the same thing. Or, maybe, that is even how Miller became the assistant professor-by submitting others’ work as his own. 79 Congressional Record (September 21, 1965), p. [H]23743. Congressman Michel said similar comments: ?If Dr. King is sincerely interested in advancing the cause of racial peace and harmony-if he is sincerely interested in the well-being of Negroes all over the country-indeed, if he is sincerely interested in the United States of America, then I urge him to deescalate the militancy and disruption which may very likely backfire and cause the loss of valuable ground which has been gained. His return to private life would be a healing and constructive act to advance the cause to which he has dedicated himself, and also will help preserve national unity.? Congressional Record (April 4, 1968), p. H2625. 80 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4312. 81 Congressional Record (February 14, 1968), p. S1238. 82 Despite the overall similarity among the communists’ beliefs in different nations, there are marked differences, too. Things that are applicable in China may not have been applicable in Russia. And, the same applies to the U.S., whose Communist Party has always sympathized with other nations but has always had certain differences in philosophy. 83 Mortimer B. Zuckerman, ?End of the Promised Land,? U.S. News & World Report (June 11, 1990), pp. 28-29. Zuckerman, the chairman and editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, says that the Soviet government was responsible for ?the liquidation of the kulaks and peasants.? Those were the very same people whom the socialists claimed to be helping. He continues: ?Soviet officials now concede that Stalin and the party under him were responsible for the deaths of 40 million people.? Ibid. 84 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968).

85 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. 86 Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, Report No. 4 (November 19, 1963), pp. 100-101.

87 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. 88 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. 4310. 89 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. Shuttlesworth had also been involved in a lawsuit. Some Blacks who were members of his congregation filed a suit against him. The suit stated: ?Mr. Shuttlesworth had usurped the power of the church trustees and officers and assumed absolute authority over the church’s property. It is also alleged that he had deposited funds of the church in institutions without authorization of the trustees and that he had denied members the right to call a meeting of the congregation.? Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 90 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 81 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 92 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. King described Aubrey Williams as ?one of the noble personalities of our time.? Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 93 Richard ?Dick? Craley, one of the founders of the NCAHCUA, was said to be a member of the Communist Party by no less than four former communists who testified before the HCUA. Russell ?Russ? Nixon, another founding member, was identified as a communist by five former communists, testifying before the HCUA. Altogether, 7 of the 13 founding members were identified as communists. Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13011. 94 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 95 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 96 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 97 The communists have always claimed that they cannot get things because they are ?exploited? and ?oppressed.? They argue that the economic disparities in their imaginary ?class? could not stem from their own inadequacies-their laziness, limited capabilities (other than to rant), and such; therefore, they suggest that everything is the fault of those who work hard to create a large business. Communist Bob Avakian, speaking at the Communist Party’s 1975 Mayday celebration in Chicago, explains the communists’ ?struggle?: ?The fact that our class continues to fight back against the oppression and exploitation that they continually bring down on us has brought the conditions into being that made it possible for the Party of the working class to be formed.? It is highly doubtful that Avakian has ever broke a sweat at his job-or even worked at a job that required hard, physical labor, for that matter. Like most agitators, he only causes problems. Instead of taking pride in hard work, he calls people who work hard ?wage slaves.? He calls people who start businesses the ?slave masters.? He says that the wage slaves and slave masters cannot work together. Bob Avakian, Our Class Will Free Itself and All Mankind (Chicago: Revolutionary Communist Party Publications, 1976).

Despite Avakian’s lurid rhetoric, there will always be bosses and employees; that is how all businesses operate-even those that were in Russia. However, the businesses in Russia just had different bosses-namely, the heads of the Communist Party. 98 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. Leaflets were distributed all over Montgomery-?authorship unknown?-shortly after the incident. ?Aching Feet,? Time (February 18, 1957), p. 19. Some money for King’s Montgomery Improvement Association came in from foreign nations, with the amount totaling to about $225,000 by year’s end. ?How They Did It,? Time (February 18, 1957), p. 20.

99 ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] at Communist Training School,? Augusta Courier (July 8, 1963), p.4.

100 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 101 ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] at Communist Training School,? Augusta Courier (July 8, 1963), p.4. The article states: ?The Highlander Folk School was abolished by an act of the Legislature of the State of Tennessee at a later date because it was charged with being a subversive organization.? Evidently, the picture was taken by an employee of the state of Georgia during the Labor Day weekend of 1957. 102 ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] at Communist Training School,? Augusta [Georgia] Courier.

103 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 104 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 105 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13011, citing the New York Times (February 23, 1961).

The Times noted, ?The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (King’s organization) and the Highlander Folk School have joined forces to train Negro leaders for the civil rights struggle.? Ibid. 106 ?Martin Luther King [Jr.] at Communist Training School,? Augusta Courier (July 8, 1963), p. 4. 107 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 108 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. Rosa Parks had been corresponding with King four months prior to her refusal to move. Miller, Voice of Deliverance, p. 176. 109 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13011. 110 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13011. King said that he could not have received any training while he was there at that time. True. It seems that he was already quite familiar with the concepts taught at the Highlander. His purpose there was to give a speech-to train others. 111 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13011. 112 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 113 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 114 Congressional Record (September 20, 1965), p. A5300. 115 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4309. 116 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 117 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 118 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 119 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 120 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 121 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 122 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 123 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 124 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 125 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 126 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 127 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 128 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 129 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 130 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 131 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 132 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 133 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310, citing St. Louis Globe-Democrat (October 26, 1962).

134 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 135 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 136 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 137 Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, Profiles of Deception: How the News Media Are Deceiving the American People (Smithtown, New York: Book Distributors, Inc., 1990), p. 101.

138 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 82. 139 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 81.

140 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 84. King seemed to like manifestos, probably modeling his after the Communist Manifesto. Aside from the Birimingham Manifesto, he signed the Manifesto of Southern Negro Leaders Against Passage of New Sedition Laws by the States, probably hoping to avoid getting into trouble for his seditious activities. 141 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. Shuttlesworth has recently had some problems. A woman rented an apartment from him. She sued him, ?claiming the minister grabbed her buttocks, kissed her against her will, and wanted a sexual relationship.? Mark Curnutte, ?Minister Says Group Is Out to Destroy Him,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (April 8, 1994).

He won the case because there were no other witnesses than the woman mentioned, but it seems that such occurrences of sexual harassment or discrimination have been a familiar sight to the civil rights advocates. For instance, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, a group of militant Blacks who bombed buildings and who mostly were not students, had been paying a 12-year-old girl $50 a month for her services. Thirteen African-Americans, including James Webb, a field secretary for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, were arrested for having ?carnal knowledge? of the 12-year-old girl. ?13 Negroes Arrested in Selma Sex Case,? The Birmingham News (October 31, 1965).

Recently, Chavis of the NAACP agreed to pay a woman over $300,000 to keep the lid on a sexual misconduct case. Associated Press, ?NAACP’s Chavis Ignores Calls for His Resignation,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (August 5, 1994), p. A12. 142 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 143 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 144 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. Young once gave the U.S. government a warning: ?If Congress is not prepared to give up part of its power, all of it will be taken away.? Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 145 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 146 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 147 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 148 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 149 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 150 Congressional Record, May 28, 1968, p. E4752. 151 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 152 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310, citing the New York Times (October 2, 1964), p. 6. Unfortunately, hoaxes of that nature, intended to generate sympathy for a cause that would not ordinarily be accepted, still occur today. 153 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 154 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 155 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 156 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 157 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 158 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786, quoting Britain’s Intelligence Digest and Weekly Review (May 1963).

159 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 160 The Daily Worker (May 17, 1959), p. 15. 161 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785, citing Challenge (November 1, 1958).

162 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 163 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 164 Congressional Recrord (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 165 Congressional Recrord (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 166 Congressional Recrord (October 4, 1967), p.H13005. 167 Congressional Recrord (October 4, 1967), p. H13015. 168 Congressional Recrord (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. James Bevel, an organizer of the Spring Mobilization Committee, was one of the top men in King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Bevel had met with Viet Cong officials in July of 1967 in Stockholm, Sweden. His wife, Diane, went to Hanoi in December of 1966 and discussed things with women in the government there. 169 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 170 Alan Stang, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights (Boston: Western Islands, 1965), p. 77, citing the New York World-Telegram (July 23, 1964), p. 2. 171 Stang, It’s Very Simple; p. 128, citing J. B. Matthews, testimony before the Florida Legislation Investigation Committee, Vol. 1, pp. 41-42.

172 Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 128; citing J. B. Matthews, testimony before the Florida Legislation Investigation Committee, Vol. I, pp. 41-42. (See footnote 35, chapter 9.) 173 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 174 Congressional Record (May 25, 1961), pp. 8349-8350. The Congress of Racial Equality-an organization that states its objectives are for bringing about ?racial equality,? as noted by its name-has an interesting way of showing it. Its constitution explicitly states that the positions that whites can maintain in its organization are limited. Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1992), p. 235. Will Maslow, who was on CORE’s Excecutive Committee and was also the executive director of the American Jewish Congress, experienced the hate that CORE has firsthand. During a meeting he attended, a black teacher and fellow member told him that ?Hitler had not killed enough Jews.? Because of that incident, Maslow resigned. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (Cape Canaveral, Florida: Howard Allen, 1972), p. 220. 175 Carl Rowan, Breaking Barriers: A Memoir (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1991), p. 303.

176 Carl Rowan, Breaking Barriers, p. 290.

177 Carl Rowan, Breaking Barriers, p. 302. 178 Carl Rowan, Breaking Barriers, p. 302. 179 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 35. The Dialectical Society, which was comprised of only Blacks while King attended college, presumably derived its name from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s asinine theory of transforming civilization into a ?classless society,? which was called ?dialectical materialism.? (Dialectical materialism simply amounts to the people in government telling you how many socks you can keep while they keep your extras to themselves, which actually happened in one communist nation.) 180 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 181 It was probably not too difficult for the Communists to ?work for a change of the passive attitude of the NAACP,? hoping to have the NAACP follow the communist doctrines more diligently. W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the NAACP, was a certified communist, according to the August 5, 1964, edition of the New York Journal American . 182 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3005. 183 These organizations and their affiliations are also listed in the Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), pp. E4783-E4788. 184 Gus Hall was the ?general secretary of the [Communist] party.? Testimony of John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations on February 10, 1966, p. 47.

185 Karl Prussion, Documentary Report on Martin Luther King [Jr.]. 186 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 187 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4785. 188 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 189 Congressional Record (April 5, 1967), H3529. 190 Congressional Record (April 5, 1967), H3529. 191 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4311. 192 Congressional Record (September 13, 1965), p. [S]22708. 193 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3007. 194 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 195 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13016. 196 Congressional Record (May 2, 1967), p. H4973. 197 Congressional Record (May 2, 1967), p. H4973. 198 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 199 Congressional Record (April 10, 1967), p. A1684. 200 Congressional Record (April 10, 1967), p. A1684. In King’s jeremiad, he decided not to include several paragraphs of his original speech. One paragraph made the ludicrous charge that U.S. policy would lead to an American colony in Vietnam. It also suggested that the Vietnam War would goad China into a war which would permit the U.S. to bomb Peking’s nuclear installations. There is little doubt that it was written merely to make people sympathetic to his cause. Congressional Record (April 5, 1967), p. H3581. 201 Congressional Record (April 10, 1967), p. A1684. 202 Congressional Record (April 10, 1967), p. A1684. If he would have spent as much time to look up facts as he spent on making his rhetoric, King would have noticed that black troops made up 11 percent of the enlisted personnel serving in Vietnam, and 10.5 percent of the general population at the time was black. Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13006. Also, blacks accounted for 9.8 percent of the U.S. armed forces who died in combat during Vietnam. Jerry Sullivan, ?Today’s American Military Is Fighting Racism, Not Breeding It,? The Cincinnati Post (March 25, 1994), p. 15A. 203 Congressional Record, (September 20, 1965), p. A5300. 204 Congressional Record, (September 20, 1965), p. A5300. 205 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3005. 206 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. H2863. 207 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. H2863. 208 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3007, citing Human Events (April 1, 1967), p. 12. 209 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3007, citing Wanderer (November 17, 1966).

210 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3007, citing The Tulsa Tribune (November 8, 1966).

211 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3008. 212 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3008. 213 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3008. 214 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), pp. E3204-E3205. 215 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3205. 216 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4786. 217 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13006. 218 Congressional Record (October 4, 1967), p. H13006. 219 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3005, citing theWashington Observer Newsletter (February 15, 1966).

Attorney General Nicholas De B. Katzenbach initially ?lied and denied? that the file existed in the presence of Lyndon Johnson, who was President at the time, in the White House. However, the House Committee on Un-American Activities was able to obtain a copy of the report that Katzenbach initially said did not exist. 220 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 58. King obtained some of his money ?legitimately.? For instance, Jimmy Hoffa gave King a check for $25,000. Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), p. E4784. 221 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., pp. 74, 94, 95. 222 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4310. 223 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4752. 224 Congressional Record (May 9, 1967), p. A2293. 225 Congressional Record (May 9, 1967), p. A2293. 226 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4751. 227 Senator Clifford Hansen of Wyoming said, ?Mr. President, yesterday the House concurred in the Senate-amended civil rights bill. The Members of the other body were under great pressures. There were those who advised against hasty action which might be interpreted as yielding to violence and rewarding the rioters. At the other extreme, it was argued that violence and racial disorder was bound to spread ever wider over American cities if the bill was not passed.? Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E2978. Many politicians probably did, in fact, sign the bill just to shut up the rioters. It was probably more than mere coincidence that the bill was accepted during the fires of hate that were fueled by the rioters. 228 Congressional Record (April 10, 1968), p. H2740. 229 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), E2926. 230 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), E2926. 231 Congressman Watson, on April 8, 1968, described the rationale behind the rioters: ?These rioters and looters were not mourning the death of King; but, as the mayor of Washington said as he rode around, these rioters were not in an attitude of mourning, but they were laughing as they were looting and burning down stores.? Congressional Record (April 8, 1968), p. H2669. It appears that the looters were just looking for a reason to destroy, and they found one. 232 Quayle et al., Martin Luther King, Jr., p. 118. 233 Congressional Record (Aprill 11, 1968), p. E2979. 234 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3242. 235 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3242. 236 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3243. 237 Congressional Record (May 16, 1968), p. E4307; citing John Milton, ?Black Power Joins `Poor’ Ranks,? Columbus Citizen-Journal.. 238 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4754. 239 Congressional Record (May 28, 1968), p. E4754. 240 Congressional Record (April 23, 1968), p. E3242. 241 Congressional Record (April 8, 1968), p. H2669. There had been an earlier planned attempt against King’s life that had failed. According to the FBI, a ?source indicated that King was to have been killed when the Statue of Liberty was supposed to have been destroyed.? Carson, Malcolm X, p. 367. The attempt to destroy the Statue of Liberty was done by the Black Liberation Front, who wanted to divide the U.S. George Carpozi, Jr., ?The Cop Who Saved Liberty,? Real (May 1965), p. 4.

242 Newsweek (December 24, 1990), p. 20. 243 Life (April 1993), p. 59. 244 Life (April 1993), p. 62. 245 USA Today (January 15, 1993), p. 11A. 246 In the same article, she lambastes former President Bush for the Gulf War, seemingly suggesting (in an almost paranoid tone) as if the entire war’s purpose was to hurt ?brown people.? Reynolds said, ?Internationally, President Ambush and Saddam Insane are trapped in a violent game of machismo in which brown people lose and chunks of integrity fall from our national soul.? USA Today (January 15, 1993), p. 13A. 247 The Cincinnati Post (February 19, 1993), p. 2C. 248 The Cincinnati Enquirer (August 29, 1993), pp. A1, A5. Some were disappointed at the number of people who attended. The rally that occurred in 1963 had a little over one-tenth of one percent of America’s population-more than three times the number that attended in 1993. In comparison, a little-known fireworks display that was held in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Labor Day had more than six times the number of people attending than the Washington, D.C., rally of 1993. 249 The Cincinnati Enquirer (August 29, 1993), pp. A1, A5. 250 The Cincinnati Enquirer (August 29, 1993), pp. A1, A5. Jackson claimed to have cradled Martin Luther King, Jr., shortly after King was shot. Of course, that was a lie. Irvine and Kincaid, Profiles of Deception, p. 100. 251 The Cincinnati Post (July 12, 1993), p. 2A. 252 ?Gay, Lesbian Group to Be Part of Inaugural Party,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (December 15, 1992), p. A3. 253 Traditional Values Coalition; 100 S. Anaheim Blvd., Suite 350; Anaheim, California 92805. 254 Gay Rights, Special Rights: Inside the Homosexual Agenda (Anaheim, California: Jeremiah Films, 1993).

255 Gay Rights, Special Rights. 256 Gay Rights, Special Rights. 257 Gay Rights, Special Rights. Apparently, the North American Man-Boy Lover Association (NAMBLA), a group of men with homosexual-pedophile tendencies, was one of the groups who attended the March on Washington. NAMBLA is one of the organizations that makes up the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), a coalition of 300 homosexual groups that exist in over 50 nations. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations gave ILGA Non-Governmental Organizational status. However, the U.S. Mission threatened to change its vote because of NAMBLA being a member, which would cause ILGA’s NGO status to be debated again. At the time of this writing on ly 4 of the 35 U.S. homosexual groups who were members of ILGA supported NAMBLA’s expulsion. Duncan Osborne, ?Which Side Are We On?? The Village Voice (February 8, 1994), p. 13. The Mafia now sells child pornography to the pedophiles, thereby furthering the deviancy in the U.S. Goombata: The Improbable Rise and Fall of John Gotti and His Gang (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1990), pp. 76, 236-237. 258 Gay Rights, Special Rights. 259 ?King’s Family Urges Action,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (January 19, 1993), p. A2. 260 ?King’s Family Urges Action,? The Cincinnati Enquirer. 261 Brian Duffy et al., ?Days of Rage,? U.S. News & World Report (May 11, 1992), p. 25. 262 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3004. 263 Congressional Record (April 11, 1968), p. E3004. 264 Congressional Record (May 29, 1968), E4784-4785. 265 Adam Parfrey, ed., Apocalypse Culture (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1990), pp. 218-219. G. Brock Chisholm, who was once the head of the World Federation of Mental Health, promulgated the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s extremely strange goal: ?What people everywhere must do is practice birth control and miscegenation in order to create one race in one world under one government.? Ibid. In the past, Chisholm suggested that people who refuse to follow his ideology should be sent to mental institutions. He suggested that morality is a ?perversion? and that the citizens of the U.S. should rid themselves of the ?concept of right and wrong.? Chisholm suggested that the U.S. should strive for ?the re-interpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong.? Also, Chisholm said that the citizens of the U.S. should give what they created to other nations so that there would be a ?redistribution of wealth.? John Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), pp. 155-159, 162-163. It seems that the only people who were actually in need of a mental institution, however, judging from Chisholm’s absurd comments, were Chisholm and his comrades who supported, to put it lightly, some very bizarre ideas. However, he is probably in the care of a retirement home by now (if he is still alive), where he, apparently, belonged a long time ago. 266 Mokgethi Motlhabi, Challenge to Apartheid: Toward a Moral Resistance (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), p. 144. 267 Motlhabi, Challenge to Apartheid, p. 146. 268 Motlhabi, Challenge to Apartheid, p. 61. 269 International Defence and Aid Fund, Nelson Mandela: The Struggle Is My Life (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1990).

270 Larry Martz et al., Newsweek (July 2, 1990), p. 19 271 ?Slayers of Top ANC Official Get Death Penalty,? The Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch (October 16, 1993), p. 4A. Hani was killed by some people who were not too fond of the idea of communism being applied to South Africa, and they were apprehended and given the death penalty. 272 Motlhabi, Challenge to Apartheid, p. 73. ?We have an important programme before us and it is important to carry it out very seriously without delay,? said Mandela. 273 USA Today (June 27, 1990), p. 11A. Bishop Desmond Tutu, who is black, once said that blacks should kill whites: ?Imagine what would happen if only 30 percent of domestic servants (in white South African households) would poison their employers’ food.? So, it should be no great surprise that he received the Nobel Peace Prize. Irvine and Kincaid, Profiles of Deception, p. 213. 274 ?South African Leaders Share Peace Prize,? The Columbus [Ohio] Dispatch (October 16, 1993), p. 2A. 275 Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini, head of the Inkantha Freedom Party, has asked de Klerk to assist the Zulus-8 million blacks-to regain a land of their own where they can rule themselves; and Zwelithini has warned that there may very well be a secession if his plea is not met. Bruce Nelan, ?Spoiling for a Victory,? Time (February 21, 1994), p. 36. ?I demand that you give the Zulu nation the opportunity to become free once again and to choose their own destiny,? said Zwelithini. De Klerk could not fathom why blacks would want to live a life of their own. ?I’m not in favor of secession for any part of South Africa,? said de Klerk. Associated Press, ?Zulu King Demands Independence, Land,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (February 15, 1994), p. A3. In Zimbabwe, which used to be the British colony Rhodesia before the whites handed over the government to blacks, the black vice president has recently asked the 80,000 whites who still reside there a small favor. Vice President Joshua Nkomo demanded that whites ?move out of our country now, before it’s too late.? ?Zimbabwe Vice President Tells Whites to Leave,? The Birmingham News (June 6, 1994), p. 5A. 276 ?Race to Defend Homeland Ends with Sudden Slayings,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (March 12, 1994), p. A2. 277 International Defence and Aid Fund, Nelson Mandela: The Struggle Is My Life (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1990), p. 173. When asked if he was a communist, Mandela replied, ?Well, I don’t know if I did become a communist.? Ibid., p. 91.

278 ?Akbar Muhammad Getting Big Time Results in Ghana,? Your Black Books Guide (April 1994), p. 18. 279 Associated Press, ?Farrakhan: Jews Plotting,? The Cincinnati Post (January 25, 1994), p. 2A. The African-American director Spike Lee has a similar opinion: ?Black South Africans gonna have to kill people. . . . Righteousness is gonna win out-from the barrel of a gun. . . . I saw those little kids [in South Africa] chanting, `One bullet, one [white] settler.’ I’ll be rejoicing. Who knows? We might see the same tactic here some day. . . . ? Barbara Harrison, ?Spike Lee Hates Your Cracker Ass,? Esquire (October 1992), p. 137. 280 Los Angeles Times, ?Multiracial Panel Takes Reins Until S. Africa Vote,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (December 8, 1993), p. A3. 281 Associated Press, ?U.S. Might Double Assistance,? The Cincinnati Enquirer (March 12, 1994), p. A2. Clinton and his comrades eventually decided to give South Africa $600 million a year over a period of three years after Mandela was elected, which he felt that U.S. taxpayers wanted to give. And, all boycotts that were used against South Africa were stopped. Because of this extra money being pumped into South Africa and the boycotts being stopped, it will give South Africans the temporary illusion that Mandela’s socialistic beliefs are working. However, when the handouts stop, it might just get nasty there. 282 Bruce Nelan, ?Spoiling for a Victory,? Time (February 21, 1994), p. 35.