Should Be Repealed Essay, Research Paper
Removing the King’s Crown
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.
A Man Named Michael
The Nonviolent Advocate
Supralegal Love and the Man
All the King’s Horses and All the King’s Men
(or, The Deceptive Name-Game)
Eskimos in Florida
Le Roi Est Mort, Vive le Roi!
A Man Named Michael
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
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.
Conquering the Castles
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.)
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 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
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.
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. 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.
The Nonviolent Advocate
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.
Supralegal Love and the Man
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 , 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
(or, The Deceptive Name-Game)
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
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.