http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/autobiography/chp_23.htm

Voters were not fooled, the African-American community in Maryland found the ads deeply offensive, and Steele was easily defeated. This year, with the first African-American presidential nominee on the ballot, the National Black Republican Association has an even more difficult task, so it’s pushing the old talking points even more aggressively.

A black Republican group has put up billboards in Florida and South Carolina saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, a claim that black leaders say is ridiculous.

The National Black Republican Association has paid for billboards showing an image of the civil rights leader and the words “Martin Luther King Jr. was REPUBLICAN.” Told about the billboards, the Rev. Joseph Lowery let out a soft chuckle that grew stronger as he began to think more about the idea.

“These guys never give up, do they?” said Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with King. “Lord have mercy.”

The NBRA’s message is unusually stupid, and will almost certainly fail miserably, but as long as the group is going to the trouble of making up ridiculous claims, we might as well go the trouble of explaining why.

Two years ago, Steve Klein, a senior researcher with the Atlanta-based King Center, said that King never endorsed candidates from either party. “I think it’s highly inaccurate to say he was a Republican because there’s really no evidence,” Klein said. A King biographer, Taylor Branch, also said Thursday that King was nonpartisan.

[The SCLC’s] Lowery, who knew King well, said there is no reason why anyone would think King was a Republican. He said King most certainly voted for President Kennedy, and the only time he openly talked about politics was when he criticized Republican Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign.

“That was not the Martin I know and I don’t think they can substantiate that by any shape, form or fashion. It’s purely propaganda and poppycock,” Lowery said. “Even if he was, he would have nothing to do with what the Republican Party stands for today. Do they think Martin would support George W. Bush and the war in Iraq?”

In “The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” which was published after his death from his written material and records, King called the Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a “frenzied wedding … of the KKK and the radical right.”

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism,” King said in the book.

What’s more, given that the NBRA’s ads are not grounded in reality, the King Center asked the group to remove the billboards. Not surprisingly, the National Black Republican Association declined. If they didn’t care about the truth before pushing the bogus message, it stands to reason that the group wouldn’t care about the truth after the fact.

I’d just add that in some ways this right-wing group’s message reveals more than it should. When Republicans want to demonstrate to the African-American community that the GOP can be trusted, it doesn’t point to its agenda, its values, or its candidates. And why not? Because it wouldn’t make any sense — even putting aside the GOP’s humiliating record on civil rights and race relations, today’s Republican Party has very little to offer black voters.

So, we end up with stunts like these. It’d be funny if it weren’t so pathetic.

PS. I am neither a democrat nor a republican, but in deference to the truth, it was President Johnson, a Democrat, and Senator Hubert Humphrey, also a democrat, who push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964–the most important single action of the US Government promoting equal rights between races–save the emancipation proclamation, and the US Supreme Courts?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥ ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?Brown vs. Board?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥ decision (a decision that was looked upon as ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?liberal?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ? at the time).

Your way to invoque god means war!

Well, sorry, but labor unions are even older than the idea of communism. And they were given existence because, if the workers have no rights, the workgivers (i.e. the rich people) can treat them like they want, usually leading to the thing that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. This however can only function a given time before the majority (i.e. the poor people) have enough of the situation. Civil riots and general uprisings are most likely the consequence. And trust me, no one really wants this to happen. Thus, unions are a vital part of modern society, preventing the conflict between poor and rich to escalate, which would be a bad thing for everybody.

Oh, and communists are strictly against unions, because officialy they don?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t need a union because the workers actually own the factory/workplace. Inofficialy, as we all know, most communistic systems (there are several different kinds) are in reality just a dictatorship in disguise and dictators don?Ǭ¨?Ǭ•t like unions. (Another reasons why democratic countries should have them.)

And if I see what has happened to the ones so great republican party, I believe that if MLK lived today, he would be democratic.

The German Guy
Better today than tomorrow!
IMPEACH BUSH!

Now on to your spesific points:

If MLK was in Memphis to ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?to support striking sanitation workers?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?, wouldn?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ¥t that put him in league with a labor union, which we all know are backed by soulless Communists?

A good question, and a perfect example of how MLK’s legacy has been distorted by liberal revisionist historians for their own evil agenda. As you know, the word “support” can mean many things. For example, nobody “supports” america more than Shelley and we writers who work for her. Does that mean we approve of everything that happens in America, heck no. It means we strive to guide Americans back to Godly ways.

I expect the same thing was true of Martin Luther King. I’m sure he would have been greatly distressed to hear that the sanitation workers had gone on strike. He would have gone out there and tried to convince them to give up their futile strke and accept their humble stations in life, the roles which MLK believed God himself had ordained for the people.

MLK would have been concerned that the cancer of communism was taking root in the South, the land he most adored. Tell me this Rob, how best can you “support” somebody who is delusional? You dont pander to their delusions, you attack them. You talk them down. You try to show them the truth and you show them God’s ways. Thats exactly what MLK did to those Memphis workers.

Then Communist infiltrators started forming labor unions and convincing employees they should have some say in the way they were treated and paid, instead of finding another job where their ?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?self-actualization might be realized?¢‚Ǩ?°?É‚Äû?ɬ?. Democ-rats, of course, just saw fundraising opportunities for their Godless platform and candidates by aligning themselves with these haters of Capitalism.

An excellent analysis – the Democrats are (and always have been) weak-minded opportunists, willing to gain from America’s misfortune. Jesus tought personal responsibility and strength through faith. I do not recall our Lord and savior ever having been an advocate of collective bargaining!

Tristan

I cannot think of any Republican who would not tell workers that if they didn’t like the pay they were getting they should just get another job.

For Liberals out there reading, you probably need a history lesson:
Since the dawn of time until the beginning of the 20th century, employers were free to use any means necessary to prevent their employees from obstructing their pursuit of capitalism. Then Communist infiltrators started forming labor unions and convincing employees they should have some say in the way they were treated and paid, instead of finding another job where their “self-actualization might be realized”. Democ-rats, of course, just saw fundraising opportunities for their Godless platform and candidates by aligning themselves with these haters of Capitalism.

I certainly do not mean to contradict you Tristan. Our ‘party of inclusion’ has no place for dissidents, but others might have noticed this seeming contradiction as well, and we all know what the devil can do with a little bit of doubt, especially in the simple minded head of a Liberal. So please clarify that point for them.

Once again, thanks for all your good work.

Rob R. Baron ~ Esquire