Who was responsible for MLK's death 44 years ago today?

On this, the 44th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I remembered an article I wrote for Breitbart's Big Peace site a little more than a year ago. After Breitbart's website reconstruction, the article is no longer available there but I did find it at America-where are you? In light of the enflamed racial environment and lack of complete perspective these days, I thought I'd post it today, on April 4th.

Using Left’s Logic, Democrats Responsible for MLK’s Death
by BEN BARRACK on JANUARY 18, 2011

In 1999, James Earl Ray was found innocent of killing Martin Luther King Jr. in the same way O.J. Simpson was found guilty of killing his wife Nicole and Ron Goldman – in a civil trial. In fact, King’s family was as convinced of Ray’s innocence as the families of Nicole and Ron were convinced of Simpson’s guilt. In King vs. Loyd Jowers and conspirators unknown, there were 70 witnesses called; twelve jurors found in favor of the King family, which held a press conference after the verdict.

One of King’s sons – Dexter – had expressed his adamant belief that Ray was not his father’s assassin. In 1997, King told Ray personally that both he and his family believed him. What would it have taken for the Goldmans and the Browns to have believed Orenthal’s story that he was innocent? Anyone who remembers the looks on their faces, their resolve and their anger would have to concede that it would have required nothing short of cold hard facts.

The verdict in King vs. Jowers found a government conspiracy involving city, state, and federal agents complicit in the murder. Dexter King went so far as to name Memphis Police Department Officer, Lt. Earl Clark as his father’s assassin.

One week prior to King’s assassination on April 4, 1968 he had gone to Memphis to show support for local sanitation workers. Riots erupted in Memphis; one person was killed and sixty were injured. The incident was incredibly damaging to the cause of King and his Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). A consequence of King’s alleged involvement in those riots was that it caught the attention of some powerful politicians. A Democratic Senator from West Virginia delivered an extremely incendiary speech on the Senate Floor that was directed specifically at President Lyndon Johnson, also a Democrat.

In that speech, none other than Robert Byrd pointed to the Memphis riots and the violent consequences as a warning to Johnson not to allow the marches King was planning on Washington in the coming weeks. Said Byrd:

Yesterday, Mr. President, the Nation was given a preview of what may be in store for this city by the outrageous and despicable riot that Martin Luther King helped to bring about in Memphis, Tenn. 

If this self-seeking rabble-rouser is allowed to go through with his plans here, Washington may well be treated to the same kind of violence, destruction, looting, and bloodshed.[1]

In no uncertain terms, Byrd was calling on Johnson to stop King’s march on D.C. Barely 48 hours later, on March 31st, Johnson would publicly announce that he would not seek reelection. Four days after that, Martin Luther King, Jr. was dead.

On April 4, 1967 – a year to the day prior to King’s assassination – King delivered his Beyond Vietnam speech at Riverside Baptist Church in New York City. A man named Vincent Harding is credited with writing most of it. According to Harding, King had already severely angered Johnson by delivering that speech, which could have made Johnson quite receptive to Byrd’s sentiment. In June of 2008, Harding spoke at Stanford University and said the following:

“Many people within the movement said, ‘Martin, you cannot raise your voice against Johnson’s war because Johnson is our man and if you raise your voice against Johnson’s war, Johnson being Johnson, is not going to like it.’”

In the hours and days after the Tucson shootings, the left wing media in America attempted to blame the Tea Party and right wing rhetoric for the deaths of six and the injuries of thirteen. Using their logic, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. should be attributed to a Democratic U.S. Senator in Robert Byrd.

Based on the results of a civil trial in 1999, Byrd’s speech would have almost necessarily have played an even more direct role if the verdict is to be accepted.

Those who express skepticism at the results of the 1999 trial in which James Earl Ray was found innocent of assassinating King have an incredible hurdle to overcome – the belief of the King family, which sides with Ray. Some have indicated that King vs. Jowers was nothing more than a promotional stunt.

Such a conclusion must be drawn from a premise that the King family was willing to publicly, wrongfully, and unjustifiably vindicate Ray in order to accuse others simply to gain notoriety. There is an important flaw in that logic as well; the defendant was only sued for $100, which he was ordered to pay. To believe that the King family was motivated exclusively by publicity, one must believe that all of its members were involved in selling out the truth of their loved one’s assassination for three figures.

The facts are these. There was one week in 1968 when much happened. On March 28th, riots took place in Memphis and King was present; on March 29th, Democrat Senator Byrd threw down the gauntlet with Democrat president Lyndon Baines Johnson by delivering a fiery speech on the Senate Floor intended to get the president to stop King’s march; Johnson announced on March 31st that he would not seek reelection; a bullet would take the life of King days later on April 4th, one year to the day after delivering what many viewed as an incendiary speech at the time.

In 2011, the only irony greater than the left blaming right wing rhetoric for the violence perpetrated by an individual having no affiliation with the right, might be that the rhetoric of some very powerful people on the left may have had a direct role in the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

That is, of course, if one applies the logic of the left.

1. Speech of Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senate Journal, Appendix Two, March 29, 1968

For hyperlinks to this story, go HERE.

Coast Guard having to Protect Ships from OWS

Back in December, OWS attempted to shut down all major ports along the Pacific coast. The plan had the support of former Obama green jobs czar, Van Jones. OWS is ratcheting up the effort to a point that requires the Coast Guard to escort ships into these ports. The reality is that OWS, which has the support of an unrepentant terrorist in Bill Ayers, is becoming a terrorist movement itself.

In early December, I suggested that the House Judiciary Committee ask Attorney General Eric Holder what the FBI is doing about OWS's agenda in this regard. They did not do that but Mr. Holder will be in front of Rep. Darrell Issa's Oversight Committee in about three weeks, on February 2nd (groundhog day).

Here is the latest on OWS and west coast ports, via TDN:

The U.S. Coast Guard will escort the first ship coming to the EGT grain terminal at the Port of Longview this month, and the Occupy movement and local labor groups say they are planning to greet the vessel with a massive protest.

EGT officials say they have not scheduled a date for the ship's arrival. The freighter is expected to haul thousands of tons of grain to Asia, but opposition groups are already marshaling their forces to support the lengthy protest by union dock workers at the grain terminal.

"We just want to swell the population of the city to show there are people behind us," said Jeff Washburn, president of the Cowlitz Wahkiakum Central Labor Council, which passed a resolution calling for a protest this week. 

He added that the labor council plans no attempt to stop the ship, a sentiment echoed in a similar call for protest by leaders of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

However, the Occupy movement is taking a more aggressive stance, calling for members nationwide to gather outside Port of Longview gates and thwart efforts to load the ship, said Paul Nipper, an organizer for Occupy Longview. The group shut down the ports coastwide, including Longview, Dec. 8.

Speaking of Van Jones, he is attempting to exploit MLK day to escalate the #Occupy movement. Check out the letter signed by Jones that refers to MLK as "the original occupier." Jones wants OWS to go crazy on MLK day, apparently.

How is this not inciting insurrection and lawlessness?

h/t GWP

Video: MLK's Daughter Channels Archie Bunker's recollection of who Signed Declaration of Independence

While on-hand at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. during the commemoration of a Chinese-made statue dedicated to her father, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s daughter, Bernice King appeared to know as much about American history as the Mao-loving sculptor responsible for the statue. While appearing to compare the MLK statue with that of Lincoln's, Bernice said that Lincoln was remembered for signing the Declaration of Independence. Uh, not unless he discovered a time machine first.

It reminded me of an Archie Bunker quote from an episode in which he was conversing with George Jefferson:

Hold it, hold it, Jefferson. I don't go around signing political documentaries just like that, ya know. Even Abe Lincoln, smart as he was, he read the Declaration of Independence before putting his John Hancock on it.

Oh, the irony.

Nearly a year ago, I wrote about why I have a problem with this statue. Aside from the fact that it was made in China by a sculptor of Mao statues, it portrays MLK as angry, with a furrowed brow and crossed arms. While we're on the subject of MLK and American presidents, I also wrote about the King family lawsuit that found James Earl Ray innocent of their father's death. Who'd they find guilty? Uh, well, operatives in a Democrat administration.

Anyway, here is Bernice King misremembering what Lincoln is remembered for:



h/t Breitbart

Video: Was Jeremiah Wright Right About how MLK Viewed Capitalism as a Demon

The video of Jeremiah Wright that is making the rounds shows the former Obama pastor in his racist light but there are parts of it that don't seem to be getting any attention. Aside from pointing to Micah 4:3 as evidence the Bible promotes Black Liberation Theology, he says Martin Luther King Jr. identified a three-headed dragon - Racism, Militarism, and Capitalism.

If Wright lied about MLK believing Capitalism is a 'demon,' he lied about his interpretation of Micah. But what if MLK DID believe capitalism was a demon? HERE is a link to one of King's speeches in which capitalism was demonized. In this regard, if Wright is correct about MLK, when will conservatives confront the reality of who MLK really was, especially in his later years?

Via The Blaze:

NAACP Disgrace: Boxing in George Washington

At an NAACP rally in Columbia, SC yesterday a statue of America's first president - George Washington - was prevented from being seen by those in attendance. This is flag burning on steroids. Let there be no doubt that there is nothing but sheer contempt for this country's founding and the vast majority of those who hold that contempt are either supporters of Barack Obama or have withdrawn their support because he's not radical enough.

Via Free North Carolina



h/t Atlas Shrugs

AUDIO: AYERS COMPARES JEREMIAH WRIGHT TO MLK

I changed the headline of this post after looking into something Ayers said toward the end of this clip from his interview on Citizen Radio on December 1, 2010 because he actually seemed to be making a pretty serious charge by comparing Jeremiah Wright to MLK. He did so by pointing to a speech King gave on March 18, 1968 called 'America is Going to Hell Unless...' It turns out that Ayers has a very valid point. The fiery speech from King was very reminiscent of Wright. However, that fact should not let Wright off the hook. On the contrary, it should cause us to re-examine King's later years.

At the beginning of this clip, Ayers describes a 'narrative' that was used to paint Obama as a 'shadowy' mystery man, a character who was associated with mysterious and evil people like a former terrorist (Ayers), a radical pastor (Wright), and a former member of the PLO (Khalidi). Ayers lays the origin of this 'narrative' at the feet of Hillary Clinton but the fact of the matter is that it's all true. Obama's past has been wiped clean and there is a treasure trove of things we still don't know about him. The things Ayers says were attributed incorrectly to the list of Obama associates were actually quite accurate.

One thing I've learned about Ayers is that every time he refers to someone he disagrees with as putting forth a 'dishonest narrative,' it means far more often than not that they're telling the truth. An exception may be the claim made by him that MLK was more radical than Jeremiah Wright.

HERE is a link to an interview between Desiree Cooper and Kate Ellis from March 29, 2008 in which the latter was discussing the release of an MLK documentary she had produced. HERE is a link to the MLK speech Ayers referred to.

Via The Blaze: