Democrats smeared Martin Luther King?

By Frances Rice - Executive Director of NBRA

As we honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during the month of his birth, let us also pause to remember the indignities he endured, who caused his suffering – the Democrats – and how. Character assassination. That's the tactic used by Democrats in the 1960's to discredit Dr. King, a Republican who was fighting the Democrats and trying to stop them from denying civil rights to blacks.

The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King's home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.

An egregious act against Dr. King occurred on October 10, 1963. With the approval of Democrat President John F. Kennedy, Democrat Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy – President Kennedy's brother – authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King's telephone by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Wiretaps were placed by the FBI on the telephones in Dr. King's home and office. The FBI also bugged Dr. King's hotel rooms when he traveled around the country.
The trigger for this unsavory wiretapping was apparently Dr. Kings' criticism of the Kennedy Administration, according to the author David Garrow in his book, Bearing the Cross. The justification given by the Kennedy Administration publicly was that two of Dr. King's associates, including David Levinson, had ended their association with the Communist Party in order to work undercover and influence Dr. King. However, after years of continuous and extensive wiretapping, the FBI found no direct links of Dr. King to the Communist Party.

The unrelenting efforts by Democrats to tarnish Dr. King's reputation continued for years after his death. To his credit, Republican President Ronald Reagan ignored the Democrats' smear campaign and made Dr. King's birthday a holiday. Under President George W. Bush, a memorial to Dr. King is being built in Washington, DC.

Today, while professing to revere Dr. King, Democrats are still trying to sully his image by making remarks that diminish his civil rights achievements and continuing to claim that Dr. King embraced Communism – a system that is secularist and socialist.

In reality, Dr. King was a Christian who held deeply religious beliefs and was guided by his faith and his Republican Party principles in his struggle to gain equality for blacks. He did not embrace the type of socialist, secularist agenda that is promoted by the Democratic Party today, which includes fostering dependency on welfare that breaks up families, supporting same-sex marriage and banning God from the public square.

An understanding of who the real Dr. King was can be gained from a glimpse of Dr. King as a young man who participated in an oratorical contest when he was 14 years old. The title of his speech was "The Negro and the Constitution" which had the following sentences: "We cannot have an enlightened democracy with one great group living in ignorance…We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flout the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule…."

If Dr. King were still alive, he would be slandered by Democrats in the same way that they smeared him in the 1960's and demean all black Republicans today.

"...No Longer a Christian Nation..."

I have to say that the rise of Barak Hussein Obama may well be one of the most intriguing political stories of my lifetime. Not that the unique nature of this political season is fallen by the wayside. Nor that the concerns wrought by the current republican administration aren't important. A seemingly self-righteous administrative process my result in a possibly less responsible (and perhaps less experienced) democratic alternative. I have been a staunch supporter of GWB. I have articualted my concerns in prior submissions. On the face of it, whether I like it or not, there is a very strong possibility that the next administration will be one of the democratic pesuasion. Imagine my chagrine and concern then to hear these words from Barack Obama. "The dangers of sectarianism are greater than ever, whatever we once were, we are no longer a christian nation, at least not 'just'; we are also a jewish nation, a muslim nation and a buddhist nation and a hindu nation and a nation of unbelievers..." (see link below at 8:03)



With oratory capabilities, unparalled in my life time, I sat amazed as did so many others watching him as the key note at the 2004 democratic convention. Like Ronald Reagan before him, Obama does captivate. Unlike, Ronald Reagan he does so with an academic tone. A thoroughness, less folksy and more sophisticated presentation that resonates like Reagan, but in a different way. Seeing his victory speech in Iowa and the democratic debates one appreciates a gifted man. Watching crowds inexplicably mesmerized by his words, in spite of seemingly shallow experience, turns a curiosity on which is difficult to explain without causing disbelief among those who know me. The statement titled above by Obama, though stunned me. To see a politician at the highest level in US politics boldly proclaim that we are no longer a "christian nation" struck me in a painful way. Everything within me wanted to decry such a statement...

But how can one argue?

It is now a very real possibility that we will have a democratic nominee who identifies with my faith in Jesus, yet promotes conceptually that we "...are not a christian nation...". Add to that a possible republican nominee who identifies with a faith that our culture, at least until this year has general defined as a cult.

If our choices become one of these two individuals or both, then I suspect that is evidence towards the statement being accurate. Shame on us... Our goal as christians, then should be to change that? DeToqueville very eloquently mentioned the opinion that American society would last only as long as America remained a moral people. The question now must be, how long can we remain "moral", if our morality is guided by an ethos other than that of scripture? We know the Truth: with no foundation in God's word "...every man does that which is right in his own eyes..." Proverbs 21:2. Unfortunately, outside of scripture we can't all be right. I dare say that in some regard the tendency of the church to abdicate its responsibility to "...act justly, and love mercy and to walk humbly before your God..." may in fact create a defacto obligation for governmental intervention. Where there is less responsibility, there is more government. Where there is more governement, there is less freedom. Will we begin to take back that responsibility, or continue to loose freedom? Only time will tell. Lord help us. Prov.21:1

For context see Part 1,2,3 and 4 of Obama's Call to Renewal presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Senator+Barack+Obama+Call+to+Renewal+Keynote+Address+faith+politics+religion+speech&search=Search

***UPDATE*** for some reason the entire Call to Renewal Speech is no longer available on YouTube. Too bad because the context offers interesting topic of debate about the wanna-be President.

To Vote or not to Vote...is that the Question?

As Plato so aptly stated, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." For many of us the primary election in 2008 may leave us feeling as if our only choice is between "inferiors." However, not choosing at all, as some evangelicals suggest, is not an option. (I know, 2006 is a bit early for any normal citizen to be thinking of such things, but such is the fate of one addicted to such things.)

While I vehemently reject the notion that the Republican Party is somehow synonymous with Christianity, the fact is the Democratic and Republican Party platforms represent two very distinct and opposite views of reality; one of these comes more closely in line with the biblical view of reality while the other denies the biblical view on almost every major social issue concerning a Christ follower. From abortion and euthanasia to homosexuality and marriage. Furthermore the American political reality is a two-party system in which the most control will go to the party with the majority in Congress.


Neither of these political parties is perfect, far from it, and to some extent in 2008 voters are left to choose between the lesser of two evils. As followers of Christ we must therefore base our decisions in the voting booth on this reality and choose according to a sound theological understanding of the issues and put that party into power whose public policies most closely reflect the biblical life and world view.


Frankly this should be a no-brainer. Not that I don't believe a Democrat can be a Christian, they'll just figure out the Truth when they get to heaven. As the old saying goes, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"...right? We all have our faults. Christians cannot in good conscience and with biblical consistency support a political party whose platform insists upon the dogmatic defense of abortion on demand. Christians cannot in good conscience and with biblical consistency support a political party whose platform encourages the normalization of homosexual behavior and the subsequent destruction of traditional marriage. Christians cannot in good conscience and with biblical consistency support a political party whose platform advocates terminating the life of the aged, infirmed and terminally ill. And, Christians cannot in good conscience and with biblical consistency support a party whose platform perverts the First Amendment in order to exclude religion from the public square.


There may be a number of lesser issues upon which good Christians can disagree regarding the respective party platforms but these core issues are simply non-negotiable in my view, for the Christ follower.


Does this mean that the Republican Party is the party that honors God in everything it does, certainly not! But such is the case with political structures composed of sinful men. The issue again is one of choosing the "best" party on the basis of its stated values and political platform as tested against the biblical standard and not our personal feelings about this candidate or that candidate. The party who controls Congress will appoint federal judges and most likely one more Supreme Court Justice. The issues confronting this nation today are of vital importance to the future of our civilization and, I would say, the continued freedom of the Church. Christians simply must stand up and be counted, cast their votes on the basis of thorough biblical reasoning.


It is as Churchill said,

"Many forms of Government have been
tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."

As temporary citizens in "the worst form of government" who live with the hope of Christ's perfect rule and reign; we are bound by moral obligation to our neighbor and our King to participate in the constructive governance of our society and nation. So with this understanding we vote and we vote our conscience. A conscience informed by Scripture.


Inaction, apathy and complacency will not "send a message" to wayward Republican candidates; it will only empower those whose public policies oppose the Truth. So plug your nose, and vote!

Privacy, my Ashcroft...

I am a die hard, card carrying, placard waving Bush supporter. (George W. Bush, supporter) Team leader, did mailings, get out the vote, community proselytizing, Bush advocate. I believe that having a President in office who respects the sinfulness of man, while pushing for the very best in all of us is a tremendous asset. That's why I don't understand the enthusiasm that the administration seems to feel for a permanent Patriot Act. Who knows when the end will come on our war against terror? Will anyone sign a treaty? Will we install a democratic government? Or will the terrorists slowly fade away into some remote country to take over, suppress and castigate a people they will then call their own. Leaving the United States with it's own lingering Terrorist, a monolithic government bureaucracy with unprecedented power unleashed by a terrorist economy based Patriot Act. A utilitarian view of this might come closest to truth. John Stuart Mill once said, ‘A people, may prefer a free government....if by momentary discouragement or temporary panic, they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; or if in a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, in all these cases, they are more or less unfit for liberty. And though it may have been to their good to have had it for a short time, they are unlikely long to enjoy it.’ Our leaders today are great men.
I trust George W. Bush. I trust John Ashcroft. But what about the future leaders of this country? Do I trust Eric Holder? Do I trust Eliot Spitzer? What about the multitude of leaders that are currently nameless, faceless bureaucrats doing the grunt work for those I currently trust. Does anybody wonder what a second Clinton Administration or the like might do with it's new found control? They were giving the Patriot Act a test run even before it became law, just ask the CIA who finally found their files in the White House residence. No, there should be serious, conscientious discussion about the freedoms we've sacrificed in the name of security. We, the people, have a significant obligation to reign in the freedoms we've given away. For Freedom given away, is freedom lost. With the Bush administration soon to be a historical footnote, it's time to take back the freedoms we borrowed to them. The Patriot Act must be fixed.

Bushes Need Weads?

It would seem that the distribution of the "Secret Tapes", will certainly offer great publicity for Doug Wead's newly released book "All the President's Children". How Mr. Wead could possibly justify tape recording and then making public these tapes is beyond me. A temporary lapse in judgement to sell more books, perhaps? I've met Mr. Wead, and believe that he truly considers himself to be a friend to the Bush family. That being said, after spending some time reading the tape transcripts from the former Bush Sr. advisor and W subordinate, one would have to conclude that the tapes can only bode well for the sake of history. It's straight talk and frankly sounds just like the W we've seen for 4 1/2 years on the world stage. There are many things that can affect the continuation of the Bush administration in an adverse way, but this, shan't be one of them. One has to reflect upon the sheer convenience of the tapes release as far as Mr. Wead is concerned. That must be the reason for his lapse in judgement. But more importantly, the tapes speak well of President Bush. Or better said, President Bush speaks well for himself. It seems that the MSM would wish this to bode negatively upon George W. Bush, but I don't see how can it help but do the opposite. It confirms what most of us expected. A non-denial, denial is truly an affirmation. Fortunately, for all of us, the methodology Bush chooses to handle his past provides exactly the ambiguous cover that is important for us as parents. Which are his intentions. Did anyone really believe that George Bush--the family clown, the college BMOC, the prankster, cheerleader and party extrovert never did drugs? By keeping it to himself, George Bush demonstrated common decency for all of us that have to answer the question to our kids. Should we address the question of drugs with our kids? Absolutely. Should we have to defend the actions of George Bush, no way. Should we have to persuade them that just because the President did it, doesn't make it right? No. But we should be able to use the information, subtle in it's release, to ask the question, to present it to our offspring. To start the dialogue with our kids we can facilitate the process of sifting through the rightness and wrongness of his actions in a way that we control. All in all I think that the Bush Administration couldn't have done better than to have these tapes released on que. The world view that President Bush seems to aspire to is that we live in a fallen world and we'd better make the best of it. We are sinners. He's a sinner. These tapes affirm that he doesn't purport to be perfect. They indicate he believes that we should aspire to, and focus on greatness. Again, not that we're always great, our choices are many times wrong. Those achilles heals' should not hinder our pursuit. And that, I believe is a critical lesson to learn from the W. Bush era. Certainly it is a far cry from the Prescott Bush, or the George HW Bush political bio fabrications. But then, I don't suppose that W has done any of this in the way that Prescott or HW would have expected.

The tension of Freedom - QUOTE

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.  They want rain without thunder and lightning.  They want the ocean without the awesome roar of its many waters.  This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.  Power concedes nothing without demand.  It never did and it never will." 

- Frederick Douglass

Value and wealth - SELF QUOTE

Value is not a measure of wealth, but a measure of contribution. 

Value and wealth - SELF QUOTE

"America was never intended to provide an equality of wealth...it was intended to provide a wealth of equality."

Definition of Tyranny - QUOTE

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands - whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective - may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

— James Madison, Federalist Papers #47

Jefferson on taxation - QUOTE

"A wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

                                                             -   Thomas Jefferson First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

The opposite of Productivity - QUOTE

"You cannot legislate the poor into riches by legislating the wealthy into poverty. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anyone anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005

Frog in a steeping Pot - Quote

Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884 - 1968). Norman was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."