January 21, 2013, - 5:41 pm

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Muslim Extremists Continue to Hijack Pro-Israel Civil Rights Leader’s Name Like It’s a Plane

By Debbie Schlussel

As you know, today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. I’m working on an important project I must finish and since things haven’t changed a lick, I’m reposting what I wrote last year on this day. Two things remain constant: King was pro-Israel and a philo-Semite, and Jew-hating, anti-Israel Muslims (a redundant phrase) continue to hijack his name and memory for their evil, hateful purposes. Their experience in hijacking wasn’t just confined to 9/11.

Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

–Martin Luther King, Jr., March 25, 1968 speech.

He Had a Dream: That One Day Israel Would Be Secure & Jew-Haters Would Stop Attacking Israel . . .


Attn, Muslim Hijackers: Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Philo-Semite, Fan of Israel

Today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Every year on this day, I have to write this . . . because every year the Muslim phonies hijack the name of Martin Luther King, Jr.–who was PRO-ISRAEL–and try to make the civil rights struggle of Black people (many of whose ancestors were sold into slavery by Muslim Arabs) into the same thing as defending a violent religion that commits terrorist acts around the world every single hour. It’s amazing that a religion whose US-based “leaders” constantly claim that the 9/11 hijackers hijacked a religion (rather than what really happened–Islam hijacked them), is so consistent in its hijacking of things that stand counter to what Islam stands for. And, with Martin Luther King, Jr., they hijack the name and legacy of a man who stood with Israel and against them. They hijack his name for their own nefarious purposes of standing with HAMAS and Hezbollah.

My faves are the unindicted HAMAS terrorist co-conspirator CAIR Action Network and the openly pro-HAMAS/Hezbollah American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). Both groups claim that Dr. King was an example for Muslims. But they get it all wrong, and their appeals are false and duplicitous.

King would definitely have opposed PFLP Islamic terrorist, immigration/marriage fraud perpetrator, and FBI award revokee Imad Hamad (who openly supports HAMAS and Hezbollah and who, I’m told, continues to fundraise for Islamic terrorists) using his name for a bigoted Arab-only essay contest.

And, as I note every year, neither group–the CAIR Action Network or ADC–ever seems to get that King spoke out against their Jew-hatred . . . AND markedly, their Israel-hatred, saying that this was the same (as we all know) as Jew-hatred. No, I’m not talking about the phony letter King was alleged to have written a friend. I’m talking about the actual King verbal slap-down of an anti-Israel student at Harvard. That King made the statement at the top of this post is confirmed in a fantastic column by his friend, liberal Democrat John Lewis, and here’s another key excerpt:

During his lifetime King witnessed the birth of Israel and the continuing struggle to build a nation. He consistently reiterated his stand on the Israel — Arab conflict, stating “Israel’s right to exist as a state in security is uncontestable.” It was no accident that King emphasized “security” in his statements on the Middle East,

For new readers–and those needing a refresher course (a/k/a every single anti-Israel Muslim who hijacks the King name), here’s an excerpt from one of my previous posts:

While the oft-cited “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” may be fabricated, King’s record and views on Israel are clear in his documented words and actions. As I wrote in 2005, in “Radical Islam Wishes You a Happy MLK Day“:

King was adamantly opposed to the views of [Islamists including “former” Islamic terrorist, FBI award revokee, and marriage and immigration fraud perpetrator Imad] Hamad and ADC [American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee], both of which often deceptively and inappropriately invoke his name. At a 1968 Harvard appearance, King rebuked a student who attacked Israel. “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism,” King said.

(Although an oft-cited “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend,” purportedly by King, may be fabricated, his Harvard quotes are well-documented, in Seymour Martin Lipset, “Socialism of fools,: The left, the Jews & Israel,” Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.)

Yup, we know how Martin Luther King, Jr. felt about the hatred of Israel and the hatred of Jews enveloping Islam in its entirety. If only the Muslims would stop ripping off his memory. But theft and lying is something they do. It’s inherent to their worldview and their position around the globe. Without it, they have nothing.

Memo to HAMAS’ CAIR Action Network and ADC: if you’re gonna assume the King name, you can’t pick and choose. You have to take the entire package. And that includes King’s strong stance in favor of Israel’s existence and security and against your Jew-hating vitriol.

I wish I could say, “I Have a Dream” that one day these bigots and enslavers from the Middle East, who’ve spread their backward ways across the globe would wake up from their hatred of Israel, America, the Jewish people, and the Christians, too.

But I don’t believe in fantasies. Facts are stubborn things.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

34 Responses

And let’s not forget one of Martin Luther King’s important statements: “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

That statement was true in MLK’s day, and it’s still true today, but Zionists are now much broader, as there are Christians and others who are also Zionists.

You can see that today with the Islam-first Senator Chuck Hagel who uses attacks on Jews and Israel interchangeably. Obama’s “tributes” to the memory of Martin Luther King are shams.

Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Okay, I see you’ve included that important quotation after all. I missed it because my computer had not finished loading and I did not get to read the full article again until now.

Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2013 at 6:04 pm

Debbie I have an annoying Jewish ambulance chasing lawyer friend on fb. He now does foreclosure defense for deadbeats and pretends to be a Ghandi like figure. Anyway today he posts that since it’s MLK day it’s beyond offensive to criticize the president today. I guess that’s one reason to oppose MLK day but more importantly I’m all for days off. We should have a federal holiday every month as I’ve noticed anything important gets done even in a four day work week. So happy MLK day.

A1 on January 21, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    A1, I’m sure that if you vowed to work as hard as the Greeks do, nobody could tell the difference.

    skzion on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 pm

A little trivia. I was recently at the Birmingham, Alabama airport and along my walk to my terminal I saw a display of some Martin Luther King’s artifacts: the suit he wore when winning an award, eyeglasses, books, some letters, a baseball glove that he used when playing with his children, etc.

One thing that struck me was that in my mind, I had always imagined MLK to be a very tall man, but his suit indicated otherwise. The display notes indicated that MLK was actually about 5′ 7″ tall. So MLK was a much shorter man than Obama, who, I believe, is over 6′ tall. But MLK has easily dwarfed Obama when it comes to intelligence and character.

In the end, when we are all gone, Obama will be just a footnote in history, or maybe on somebody’s list of the worst US presidents of all time, but that’s about it. MLK’s legacy, however, will live on.

Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2013 at 6:23 pm

I just want people to tell the TRUTH about Michael King (his actual name).

John Robert Mallernee on January 21, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    Yes, that’s true–Martin Luther King’s first name was actually Michael, not Martin. But what’s the big deal about that?

    Sometimes people change their names or its changed for them. Perhaps you’ve heard of Leslie Lynch King, Jr.–once president of the U.S.? What? Never heard of him?

    But I’m sure that you know the name that he changed it to: Gerald Ford.

    Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2013 at 8:24 pm

I say let the Muslims have him. Though integration was a worthy cause – I personally benefited from it after all – and King was right on Israel, the guy nonetheless was a leftist radical who associated with the worst sort of socialists and communists, purposefully provoked riots and confrontations (his claims of nonviolence was doublespeak tactics) with his fiery rhetoric and street theater tactics, make “civil disobedience” (actually purposeful lawbreaking on a planned and wide scale) common and acceptable, sowed distrust and disrespect for law enforcement and legitimate political and community leaders, had the personal morals of an alley cat, made a mockery of legitimate Christianity, and deceived his followers, many of whom suffered severe beatings, were bitten by police dogs, took water hoses, were imprisoned and even died following a man whose real beliefs and agenda they knew nothing about. It is no accident that the guy inspired the likes of Obama, who is a whole lot closer to the actual MLK than many want to admit. Keep in mind: MLK never joined or identified with the Democratic Party because he was way to the left of the Democratic Party and considered joining it to be compromising his principles.

Let’s not forget that at the time, before his death made him an alleged martyr, King had plenty of critics in the black community, who did not like his radical beliefs and considered his tactics to be self-indulgently dangerous and destructive. Thurgood Marshall, while certainly no conservative, despised King because he felt that King’s methods undermined the very institutions that blacks needed for advancement and were alienating sympathetic whites and driving a gulf between black and white communities that would be hard to repair. Marshall, while again very liberal, nonetheless was dedicated to working within the system. King was a radical who saw himself as a revolutionary – seriously, after the manner of actual Marxist revolutionaries who overthrew countries! – who was trying to destroy it.

Again, while I personally benefited from integration, to this day I wonder whether King did more harm to the black community – and to the country – than good. And incidentally, lots of better, more responsible black leaders also supported Israel. They just didn’t have days named after them. So if the Muslims want to attach themselves to King’s legacy just like the communists, atheists, abortionists and gay rights activists already have, then let them wear that shoe because it fits them. I know of more than a few people who participated in the civil rights movement that are now embittered against it because they later found out what a scam and deception the whole deal was, and it is those people that the media and the academics have no interest in talking to.

Gerald on January 21, 2013 at 7:36 pm

    Gerald, I disagree with your broad brush treatment of MLK as “a leftist radical who associated with the worst sort of socialists and communists,” as you put it. Certainly, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI tried to depict MLK as such, but they were, in fact, unable to do so, in spite of spending much taxpayers’ money and the time and energies of many government employees spending countless hours investigating him and his associates and friends. In the end, they could find nothing of that nature, although they did learn that MLK had several affairs with female admirers. So they attempted to use THAT information against him. But that’s about it.

    Thus, in the end, your depiction is not correct. And, in fact, Debbie had posted an article last year indicating that on some issues, MLK was a conservative. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/46050/book-by-king-friend-mlk-jr-was-a-conservative-on-immigration-anti-semitism-etc/#comments

    Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2013 at 8:42 pm


      That conservatives attempt to claim King today is hilarious. While King disavowed Soviet communism and did not officially join anything like the American Communist Party (making him different from NAACP founder W.E.B. Du Bois for example) even some of King’s lieutenants like Andrew Young acknowledged that King was a democratic socialist (in service to denying that King was a Soviet style communist like Du Bois or a Soviet agent).

      But while King wasn’t a card carrying communist, some of his pack buddies definitely were. Stanley Levison, King’s advisor and sometimes speechwriter, was not only a member of the American Communist Party but one of its leaders. Clarence B. Jones, another King advisor and speechwriter, was a member of the Labor Youth League, a communist front organization, and was discharged from the military because he refused to sign a document stating that he wasn’t a communist. Other King associates that were members of or had ties to the communist party included Jack O’Dell and Philip Randolph (though Randolph at least became disillusioned with the communists and quit).

      Also, King’s tactics were straight out of the Marxist revolutionary playbook. A classic way to overthrow a regime is to convince people that the regime is repressive and illegitimate and its leaders and laws should not be obeyed. The street protests, the pressure tactics against businesses and institutions, all of it was used by folks who ultimately led Marxist coups in third world and developing countries. Even King’s religious beliefs were Marxist liberation theology reinterpretations of scripture, making King no different from Obama buddies Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger theologically. We know that liberation theology was created by the KGB for the purpose of covertly spreading communism in the west. Except that King never told the people who were following him to face down fire hoses, billy clubs, police dogs, angry segregationists wielding guns and rocks etc. that he was trashing and betraying and exploiting their religious beliefs. Even King’s pervasive infidelity was because of his religious beliefs (and Jeremiah Wright sleeps around also).

      The problem was that the people who knew and were willing to speak the truth about King were generally segregationists or Booker T. Washington type accommodationists, so their truths were ignored. And even when those who weren’t like Thurgood Marshall spoke out against him, the liberal media ignored it. But it was still the truth. The guy was a socialist and a skunk whose tactics undermined institutions.

      Here is what the guy would do. He would go to one city, lead a march, give a speech with his fiery (Marxist) rhetoric and riots would break out. He would go to another city and the same deal: riots would happen. (He used “nonviolence” as propaganda cover for the fact that he was inciting riots on purpose. King would incite riots on purpose and disavow responsibility for them.) Then he would threaten the third city with the same unless they made the concessions that King wanted. City leaders, desperate to avoid riots and the bad (liberal) media coverage, usually gave in. The one city that didn’t? Daley’s Chicago. King knew that if he tried his street thuggery in Chicago, Daley’s police officers would beat him to a bloody pulp. So King avoided Chicago, a city that was actually willing to enforce the law, and targeted weaker leaders.

      Some hero you got there buddy. He is no hero of mine. And I am not even a conservative like you. I just hate communism, and I also abhor what disrespecting the police and legitimate leaders has done to plenty of low income and minority communities. It wasn’t just the Great Society programs, though they played a role. The bad ideas cultivated by the civil rights movement – which again was created by a card carrying communist subversive W. E. B. Du Bois plus his own posse of radicals including Joel Spingarn, Mary Ovington, William Walling and Henry Moskowitz – played a role too. Do you think that rappers would have been able to make songs like (expletive) the police and cop killer had civil rights leaders not spent decades making anti-police and anti-law and order attitudes legitimate?

      Gerald on January 21, 2013 at 10:01 pm

        More verbal diarrhea Gerald? Your septic tank must have sprung a leak.

        Worry01 on January 21, 2013 at 10:33 pm

        Gerald, I’m not saying you’re 100% incorrect, but I am saying that your brush is so broad and sweeping that your conclusions are without foundation. I am very much aware of Stanley Levison and his work with MLK.

        You do know that Levison had done legal work for MLK entirely without charge, and that Levison was very careful to the extent that he could be not to let his previous ties to the Communist Party taint MLK’s work? Even the FBI acknowledged this privately.

        David Garrow wrote an excellent article about this specific subject in The Atlantic many years ago, called “The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.” You can read it for free here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/07/the-fbi-and-martin-luther-king/302537/#

        I’d urge to be more open to reading more balanced presentations of the subject, such as this one, and not just reading literature with an anti-communist spin.

        Ralph Adamo on January 22, 2013 at 12:59 am

          Ralph, Gerald offered many specifics that you do not address. The weight of these specifics is what impresses me.

          skzion on January 22, 2013 at 7:09 pm

        I’m going to disagree with Worry this time. I thought Gerald’s contribution was valuable.

        Note that I have nothing against nonviolent actions, but plenty against riots.

        skzion on January 22, 2013 at 7:06 pm

          Skzion, I thought I addressed the specifics with my reference to the older article from The Atlantic. If the point is that MLK is guilty of being a communist by association, then Gerald is correct–but that’s only if you believe that someone is guilty by association. I don’t believe that. As the article clearly pointed out, however, although some of MLK’s associates had links to communists, MLK himself was not, nor did he even show an interest in the ideology. Although I’m mindful of the idea that “you are defined by the company you keep,” looking at the big picture, I think MLK accepted help from wherever he could get it, and, as I’ve pointed out, even Levison–one of MLK’s closest associates with prior communist connections–was careful not to have his past taint MLK’s future.

          Insofar as the other “specific” mentioned, that MLK used Marxist tactics and caused race riots–I don’t think that there’s any evidence of that. Certainly none was cited. If anything, the riots that began to occur around that time were the work of the Black Panthers (i.e., the original group–not the “New Black Panthers”). MLK was very careful not to align himself with those in the black community that believed that the militant approach was the way to get civil rights. I see nothing insincere in MLK’s conduct that would provide any evidence that did not believe in nonviolent demonstrations. Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, Eldridge Cleaver, and Angela Davis are the names that come to mind from that era–and they were race riot instigators and, most important to this particular discussion–unabashedly Marxist.

          If Gerald can show me some real history that establishes that MLK used the same tactics as the Black Panthers, then I will consider what is presented. But the history I’ve read, and I’ve read from all perspectives–including the anti-communist perspective–the only thing communist about MLK was that he had associates close to him who had communist links, and even then, friends of his, such as Stanley Levison, made a point of dropping those connections because he believed in MLK’s cause and he did not want the tar brush of communism applied to MLK, if he could help it.

          Ralph Adamo on January 22, 2013 at 11:05 pm

          Ralph, this is partly an empirical matter. Gerald says:

          “Here is what the guy would do. He would go to one city, lead a march, give a speech with his fiery (Marxist) rhetoric and riots would break out. He would go to another city and the same deal: riots would happen…. Then he would threaten the third city with the same unless they made the concessions that King wanted.”

          Now, did riots pretty much inevitably occur after MLK made a speech? The content of a speech has a great effect on the conduct of a crowd. I recall vaguely that data support Gerald’s empirical claim. I’m not confident, though. I *am* confident that a column in the Atlantic would not have much impact for me as evidence. As MLK is not one of my big concerns, I’ll not dedicate time to sifting through the evidence.

          MLK was apparently not a Communist. But there were plenty of “fellow travelers” who made Communist goals easier to attain even if they were not Communists themselves.

          skzion on January 23, 2013 at 6:38 pm

          If you want to think that MLK was a communist or had aided communism, here are some facts for you to think over.

          1. MLK preached nonviolence and said that peaceful demonstrations were the way to advance the cause of civil rights.

          2. Malcolm X was part of the Black Muslim movement, which advocated a militant stance. Malcolm X had meetings with MLK, and had begun to break away from the Black Muslims.

          3. Both MLK and Malcolm X were being closely tracked by the FBI. The FBI considered both men to be “dangerous.”

          4. The Black Muslims and the The Black Panthers were openly militant. The Black Panthers, in particular actively encouraged race riots. Both groups used intimidation tactics and outright violence to intimidate potential opponents.

          5. The Black Panthers were openly Marxist and openly embraced full-fledged members of the The Communist Party.

          6. Both MLK and Malcolm X were terminated by unknown assassins.

          7. No leaders of the Black Muslims or the The Black Panthers were assasinated.

          8. The FBI never attempted to discredit or harm the leadership of the Black Muslims or the The Black Panthers.

          9. After the terminations of MLK and Malcolm X, the race riots really began to take form and then escalated rapidly.

          Every one of these statements is verifiable fact, not speculation. Each of these facts should be thought of in the context of the whole, and not piece by piece. There is no plausible reason to think that any of these facts are just coincidences. So, when you put it all together, what do you come up with?

          That the FBI was anti-communist, even though they went after MLK with a vengeance and Malcolm X to a lesser extent, but gave a free pass to the Black Muslims and The Black Panthers, who were fomenting race riots, and the latter was actively financed and favored by the The Communist Party?

          Yet, some on this message board would still argue that MLK was a communist or advanced communist goals, without a shred of evidence or even a logical cause and effect. One thing is certain, when you become a dogmatic ideologue, the thinking process takes a back seat to dogma. Also, there’s a big difference between having principles and being a dogmatic ideologue.

          Ralph Adamo on January 24, 2013 at 2:46 am

    I would place Rev Michael Manning of http://www.atlah.org above any Black preacher EVER!

    He makes my toes curl, when he lets fly!

    He calls a Spade a Spade & a Ni–er a Ni–er & passes no one any apology.

    Go to You Tube & see him talk about the Zimmermann case.

    He has no time for Black preachers like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

    Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 7:26 pm

Folks, there are some folks who are anti-islam and call out nefarious and shady behavior and thinking of muslims like we call them out here on this blog and maybe other websites, but check this out, some of them claim that there against islamic terrorism and anti-islam, but at the sametime they say that they’re anti-zionist but not anti-semitic! I’ve tried my very best to explain to those when they say that there “anti-zionist, there indeed anti-semites”, but they deny it and say that they hate zionism, but like jewish people, and I continue to say “bullshiite” to them on how their wrong on what there saying, can any of you along with DS herself to help me out on it!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on January 21, 2013 at 9:03 pm

    Modern Zionism arose in late nineteenth century Europe as a result of escalating antisemitism encouraged by antisemitic parties and organizations. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion(forgery)was produced in Russia around the turn of the last century. It had the general hodgepodge of Jews controlling all of the media and banks. The structure of The Protocols is that of minutes from a meeting of Jewish leaders plotting to take over of the world in order to destroy Western Civilization, etc. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion still has an audience in Muslim circles, as well as with some vestigial Neo-Nazi groups.

    Efforts as assimilation, apart from a complete renunciation of Judaism, had failed to quell the official and unofficial harassment of Jews in Europe. You still had pogroms occurring in parts of Eastern Europe into the twentieth century just before the First World War. Zionists recognized that Jews needed a land of their own in order to assure their own security of survival. The area where the Jewish homeland once existed was a part of the Ottoman Empire. Jews in Europe gradually began to purchase parcels in what later became known as Palestine after the First World War.

    Zionists believed that Israel indeed was set apart for the use of the Jews in the form of a covenant between G-d and the patriarch Abraham, or for historical reasons.

    A Jew who does not believe in Judaism or the right of the Israelites to occupy their own homeland is no longer a Jew, apart from ancestry. There are more than a few secular Jews who have turned their back upon Judaism and Israel. If you despise your ancestry and cultural heritage, why should you consider yourself a Jew?

    The best answer to your anti-Zionist friends is that they only like Jews who are no longer Jews. An anti-Zionist Jew is a Jew who no longer is a Jew. That is actually the crux of it.

    Worry01 on January 22, 2013 at 12:59 am


      by Samuel Roth
      Chapter IV


      But what sort of speech is this for a Jew, you are probably asking yourself, by this time? I can see the question half-glimmering in your eyes. My answer must be steel set in granite. The dew of compassion has entirely dried up in my bowels. I am myself a Jew, I know it. But I am a Jew who has been brought to the point where he so loathes his people that he thinks in terms of their destruction. No, it has not escaped me that the destruction of Israel would mean my own end, too. I would not want to survive in a world without Jews. Yet, by God, I don’t know how I shall ever again contentedly live with them: I pray for my own effacement as fervently as I pray for theirs. This is a work of terror, and I am trying to make a terribly good job of it. I have taken out the old Jewish carcass to expose it in the sun. I shall rub it till every sore on it shines like a planet of light.
      I know how well the Jews have earned the hatred which is in my heart towards them. I do not doubt that they have earned in equally good measure the hatred which the nations entertained towards them since records of such international courtesies have been made. Anti-Semitism is a natural effect of a social cause. I cannot understand why such a deep mystery is made of this simple cause.
      The causes of anti-Semitism lie in the very deepest recesses of human nature. They are like pebbles at the bottom of a very deep stream. But the waters of the stream are clear and I have no difficulty making them out.
      The first cause of Jew-hatred goes back to the nature of Jewish leadership, a black veil on the conscience of the race. The second goes back to the nature of the people itself, and it is an evil no less foul. The first appears to be an evil without remedy. But the second does not seem to me impossible to deal with.
      Beginning with the Lord God of Israel himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered and guided the tragic career of the Jews – tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighbouring nations who have suffered them. But we must have been a pretty horrible people to start with. Our major vice of old, as of today, is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor and the good nature of the rest of the world.
      But, despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership. Granted our parasitism. But Parasitism is a virtue as well as an evil. Certain germ-parasites are essential to the steady flow of blood through the arteries of an organic body. Certain social parasites, by the same dispensation, are important to the functioning of the blood of the body politic. The shame of Israel comes not of our being the bankers and the old clothes-men of the world. It comes, rather, of the stupendous hypocrisy and cruelty imposed on us by our fatal leadership, and by us on the rest of the world.
      The whole career of Jewry divides itself for me into three distinctive and significant parts. The first was the period of the patriarchs when the Jews were numerically so inferior to the nations about them that they practically never went out to war against them, but depended, for looting them, on the success of such little games as palming off wives as sisters and buying birthrights. The second period was the long national rest in Goshen, and the subsequent flight from Egypt, during which the Jews discovered, to their own amazement, that they had grown into a population of more than two million people. They were now so superior numerically to the little tribes and kingdoms of Arabia, who stood in the way of their march on Canaan, that it was practically no effort to slaughter them. And so they did. This second period lasted about two centuries, to the anguish of a bleeding peninsula. The inevitable followed, and that brings us into the third major division of Jewish history. The wrath of the larger nations to the north and the west of Judea was aroused against the usurpers. One by one they swooped down on the Jews. The tide of conquest turned; it was now the Jews who were slaughtered and taken into captivity almost at will. At one time nearly three quarters of the whole Jewish nation was seized and carried into a captivity from which it was never returned. It took a little time for this “stiff-necked people,” as the prophets called them, to realize that once more it was they who were numerically inferior to their enemies. The realization sank in slowly but surely. Wisdom pointed out a reversal of national policy. The time when they could destroy their neighbor-nations by violence being definitely at an end, did they give up the national ghost? Ah, no. For the first of all Jewish creeds is that Jews must live. It does not matter how, by what, or to what end? Jews must live. And so a return was made to the ancient policy of conquest by the more peaceful and delicate methods of cheating, lying and pimping.


      Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 6:33 pm


    The Quran contains very negative and insulting myths about Jews and Christians.

    Three of the Quranic verses that reflect these myths are-

    2:63 – 65, 5:60, and 7:166.

    2:63 – 65 And (O Children of Israel, remember) when We took your covenant and We raised above you the Mount (saying): “Hold fast to that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein so that you may become Al-Muttaqun. Then after that you turned away. Had it not been for the Grace and Mercy of Allah upon you, indeed you would have been among the losers. And indeed you knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. We said to them:

    “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.”

    #79 The punishment for breach of the Sabbath under the Mosaic law was death. “Every one that defieth it (the Sabbath) shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus. xxxi. 14). There must have been a Jewish tradition about a whole fishing community in a seaside town, which persisted in breaking the Sabbath and were turned into apes; cf. vii. 163-166. Or should we translate in both these passages. “Be as apes”, instead of “Be apes”? This is the suggestion of Maulvi Muhammad Ali on this passage, on the authority of Mujabid and Ibn Jarir Tabari. The punishment would be, not for the breach of the Sabbath in itself, but for their contumacious defiance of the Law#

    *** For once, the interpreter is CORRECT.

    Yet once again does Muhammad Plagiarise and Pervert a traditional Jewish story and inserts it in his Quran to make it look original.

    The above story is a different version of a Rabbinic original – one among many to be found in Ginzburg’s: Legends of the Jews, Vol. 6, p85 – in which ONE Shabbath breaker was turned into an ape by Moses – not Allah ***

    5:60 Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): “Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hellfire), and far more astray from the Right Path.”
    7:166 So when they exceeded the limits of what they were prohibited, We said to them: “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected.” (It is a severe warning to the mankind that they should not disobey what Allah commands them to do, and be far away from what He prohibits them).

    *** In the case of 5.60 mentioned above, Allah turned ONLY those who worshipped Taghut into monkeys and swine and no one else.

    In the cases 2.63-66 & 7.166, Allah only SAID “Be you monkeys, despised and rejected” and ONLY to those who broke the Sabbath Rule.

    No where in all these verses is there either an assertion or an implication that ALL JEWS are Descended from Apes and Swine.

    These false and anti Jewish insults were deliberately and mendaciously made by Muhammadan exegetes over the centuries of calumny and insults towards All JEWS, because of the Hatemongering and Warmongering Quranic and Hadiths verses against them ***

    Additionally, we read that the historical ‘Islamic scholars’ and commentators agreed with the literal interpretation of this verse:
    Allah transformed these Jews into apes because they disobeyed His commandment and went to catch fish on a Saturday. These Jews inhabited a coastal city (refer to Chapter 2:65).
    The Qur’an says:

    “And you know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how we said unto them,
    ‘Be apes, despised and hated!”‘

    The interpretation of the expositors of the Qur’an is in full agreement with the content of these verses .
    (Refer to the Baydawi, page 14; Jalalan, pages 10, 11; Zamakhshari, part 1, page 286).

    The same hatemongering ‘scholars of Islam’ deliberately and very conveniently ignore similar Hadiths indicating that SOME MUSLIMS WILL BE TURNED INTO PIGS AND APES AS WELL.

    Bukhari 7.494B:
    Narrated Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash’ari:
    that he heard the Prophet saying, “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of a mountain and in the evening their shepherd will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, ‘Return to us tomorrow.’ Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection.”

    Abu Dawud, Book 32, Number 4028:
    Narrated Abu Amir or Abu Malik:
    AbdurRahman ibn Ghanam al-Ash’ari said: Abu Amir or Abu Malik told me–I swear by Allah another oath that he did not believe me that he heard the Apostle of Allah say: There will be among my community people who will make lawful (the use of) khazz and silk. Some of them will be transformed into apes and swine.

    *** Some Muhammadans would turn to the lusts of the world and fornicate, wear silk, drink alcohol, and listen to music.

    Their punishment (FOR HAVING ANY KIND OF FUN & PLEASURE) is that Allah would supernaturally destroy some and others would be transformed into monkeys and pigs.

    Hence, using EXACTLY the same ‘logic’ as that of the Muhamnmadan ‘scholars’, ALL the FOLLOWERS of Muhammad ALSO, are descended from APES & SWINE ***

    There are more infantile references to various animals* in ‘Islamic traditions’; the above are sufficient to make the point:

    The cult of Muhammadan Islam is filled with superstitions and the poor ‘Muslims’ are INDOCTRINATED and plagued by these superstitions to this day.

    Perhaps Muhammad didn’t know better.

    He did not grow up in a very scientific culture.

    But people today, especially ‘Muslims’, who have unlimited access to all types of information, should acknowledge Muhammad’s zoological errors and realize that he was neither knowledgeable, nor a prophet.

    Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Martin Luther King, Jr deserves praise for his pro Israel stance. However, much of his public persona does not. I remember Dr. King at the end of the summer of 1965. Two civil rights bills had been passed, and students from colleges who spent their summers in the South registering Black (the term used then) voters regarded the campaign as being over – in much the same way that World War II was over. The objective had been reached. Blacks had the right to vote, time to move on to something else.

At this time Americans were starting to focus on the war in Vietnam. King united the still active civil rights movement with the nascent anti war movement – a typical leftist ploy. It was believed that he could not say goodbye to the civil rights movement because he enjoyed public attention too much.

He gave speeches comparing American involvement in Vietnam – a war against Asiatic people – to the war against Blacks in the US. He accused the United States of being racist and imperialistic. His rhetoric sounded like that of the Viet Cong. He claimed that the hard work of the civil rights movement would come to naught and would be cosmetic only. That is because the US in his view was racist to the core.

There was a great deal of controversy about declaring Dr King’s birthday a national holiday. One of the reasons given in favor was that African Americans needed to feel proud. There are other African American heroes more deserving. African Americans do not need to be patronized or infantalized with false heroes.

Gloria Stewart on January 21, 2013 at 11:31 pm

Although MLK is the person remembered for Montgomery, E.D. Nixon was really the key originator of the boycott, and did not get 1/100 of the recognition that King got. Incidents like this give some credence to what Gerald is saying.

But, while there were other Black leaders who supported Israel, the Muslims have not tried to co-opt Roy Wilkins, Whitney Young Jr., or, to my knowledge, Bayard Rustin. This sets King apart from them in one crucial way, the way Debbie was writing about.

That was the main point of the post. I guess maybe it could be read to imply endorsement of his entire career, but that would be reading a lot into it, since the post dealt primarily with his view of Israel, and the Muslim attempt to co-opt him.

More conservative leaders differed from King in that by being further removed from the central struggles, the Muslims, so to speak, apparently did not consider them ‘worth’ co-opting. So, in that sense, MLK did stand apart from them.

And unlike some of the more conservative Black leaders, King managed to stay in the center of the civil rights movement all his life, for good or for bad. This, too, distinguished him from some of the others.

So Debbie’s point was that this particular leader, whom first the Muslims tried to claim, and second, who stayed in the limelight all his life, supported Israel to a significant extent.

And it is worth remembering that King’s pro-Israel comments occurred in 1968, after the 1967 war, and after the disastrous New Politics Conference of 1967 which trumpeted the view that ‘Zionism is Racism’ that did so much to help propel the change in the axis of the Black Struggle.

Little Al on January 22, 2013 at 12:29 am

And,for the record, another example of MLK working with the Communists was in the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations in the 1960s. His representatives, obviously with his consent, participated in organizations where the Communists had heavy participation, and, in some cases, control. There is no question about MLK’s association with radical left-wing organizations and individuals throughout his career. And aren’t the formative years the most important? Just as our President has limited his association with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright during his Presidency, we know what happened in the formative years. And after Venona, we should all be aware of ‘secret Communists’.

But he did move to Chicago’s ghetto in 1966. Granted it was temporary, but he did move to Chicago, and was probably as active there as in any Northern city.

Finally, the Muslims’ claiming MLK would give them additional legitimacy. Why would anyone agree to that? Regardless of any shortcomings of his, would those shortcomings justify giving legitimacy to those who would destroy our way of life?

Little Al on January 22, 2013 at 8:42 am

The same principle, btw, re Ms. Obama’s attitude towards Boehner. Regardless of Boehner’s shortcomings, is this type of gratuitous rudeness justified?

Little Al on January 22, 2013 at 8:48 am

MLK had trouble remaining relevant after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were past. He had to compete increasingly with the likes of Malcolm X and Stokely Charmichael. I could understand being vigilant about the implementation of those acts, since similar legislation passed during the Reconstruction Era(1865-77)was either ignored or voided through court action. Jim Crow and Separate but Equal were allowed to appear and grow as the North’s interest in civil rights began to wane.

What was not acceptable was effective capture of the movement by the likes of Black nationalist and racist groups whose purposes were revolutionary and destructive. Soviet foreign policy,after a short attempt to befriend Israel, turned entirely negative. Israel was not interested in becoming anti-Western, so the Soviet Union sought its demise. This attitude was either directly or indirectly fed to other leftist groups at the time. Israel became the offending party, even though it its neighbors and many on the inside of it sought its demise.

Worry01 on January 22, 2013 at 11:25 am

Ah, yes the subject of Rev. MLK continues to elicit the ridiculous responses from the likes of the Philosophers and PhDs and Historians who have studied this subject extensively and exclusively, and desire to enlighten us with their scholarly postings on this blog. But may I ask of you posters why you defile the name and actions when at the same time refuse to address the core issues that spawned leaders of the Negro community such as MLK. And where were these “riots” that so many of you speak of? The only riots were when after MLK was killed by a White man, and then why assume that they were all followers of MLK and his movement? Do you know the term “White Backlash”? Do you know that a rock cracked open the head of Rev. King in Marquette Park, Chicago, thrown by the hateful racist White crowd, and not the police? How many White mens were lynched in the South, and the KKK was not a Southern version of the Boy SCouts, but a terrorist organization. One must remember the “Communist” hysteria of the 1950’s, the Cold War, remained through the 1960’s, anyone who was perceived as “diffrent” and wanted their rights wear all branded as Communist. Revisionist history does no one any good, and if you must then revise all History and call it what it is: The White Man is the biggest terrorist organization in the U.S. according to the Native Americans who welcomed them and the Mexican man who let them immigrate to Northern Mexico, now known as Texas, before they all decided they wanted that land. Be truthful and honest with yourselves before thou pointest the finger at someone else.

Rev. Umgana Kicqbouti on January 24, 2013 at 10:20 am

    If I Was a Ni–er

    If I was a Ni–er…I could drive a Cadillac with class
    My pocket stuffed with welfare checks, and I could sit on my big black ass
    Now you take a Ni–er, he ain’t nobody’s fool,
    He doesn’t buy any gasoline to drive his kids to school
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    Our government has gone crazy, I’d change things if I could
    If I was only a ni–er, I could afford to live in a White neighborhood
    Oh the things that I could do, if I was Black and hell bent
    I could send my kids to college, and it wouldn’t cost me one damn cent
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    The wife and I were down on our luck, we were really getting uptight
    They said at the welfare office, you ain’t Black, you’re White
    Oh how I’ve tried to get a job, a diploma I had with pride
    The post office man laughed and said you’re not dark enough to even qualify
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    I took a civil service exam, and passed it without shame
    A Ni–er took one next to me, and he couldn’t even write his own name
    The Ni–er, he got the job, now he’s government top “brass”
    He couldn’t qualify for a trash truck; I’m out on the street on my ass
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    If I was a Jesse Jackson, I’d be nobody’s slob
    Wearing $500.00 dollar suits, that ni–er hasn’t even got a job
    If I was Barack Hussein Obama, I could sit back and relax
    And if elected President, could paint the White House black
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    If I was a jig-a-boo, I could find me my roots
    With an afro big as a watermelon, and a pair of white disco boots
    If I was only dark complexioned, I could stand tall in this life
    I could eat high off the hog, just me and my White-assed wife
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    Things are supposed to be segregated, but things are a little off key
    I’ve never seen a White man, head…of the NAACP
    It ain’t that I don’t like a Ni–er, if I’ve rubbed you wrong by chance
    Take a look at that mistletoe, hanging on the seat of my pants
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er.

    If I was a kinky top, I could be a Martin Luther King
    I’d have me a vision on a mountain top, my song the whole world would sing
    I could have me a Peace March, on the streets of Memphis, Tennessee
    I could tare up the whole damn city, and the police wouldn’t dare stop me
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er

    A lot of things in life I know, but one thing I can’t figure out
    Why a Ni–er can call me a honkey, and I cant call a ni–er a Ni–er
    If I was a jungle bunny, I could ring a golden bell
    I could be a Mohammed Ali, and be loved by Howard Coozell
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er

    If I was a you-bangy, 7 foot tall and lean
    I could be a famous player, on the Washington basketball team
    If I was only chocolate brown, I could have me some turnip greens
    A possum fat and watermelon, chitlens and a pot of butter beans
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er!

    Now when Martin Luther King, was buried in Washington with class
    Face down in his coffin, so the politicians could kiss his ass
    I guess its just politics, and it sure gets my goat
    Kiss assin with a Ni–er, just to get his vote
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er!

    If I was only a “birdhead”, I’d live high on the hill
    Selling cocaine and prostitutes, and poppin all kinds of pills
    Now take the NAACP, they can march and raise all kinds of hell
    Let the KKK start to move, and they’ll all wind up in jail
    Damn I wish I was a Ni–er!

    I dreamed my life was over, I heard Saint Peter say
    Today we’re taken on the Ni–ers, you’ve gotta go the other way
    Then I heard the Devil, he said I heard what Peter had to say
    But I’m sorry to tell you son, today in hell…is Ni–er Day.
    Damn don’t you wish you were a Ni–er!

    Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 6:24 pm

I would like to quote something of yours Debbie, which caught my eye. ”Most offensive in this movie is that a criminal is pointedly wearing a Jewish Star/Star of David.” Also you go on to say how it shouldn’t have been included in the movie and instead, skipped. Well poor you, you sound so distraught and offended about a little comedy in a movie. Of course it was wrong to pun any religion but just know how it feels when you hear about something like that about your beliefs. Now I’m sure Judaism teaches not to judge others and leave that to God instead, because right now, this whole blog… seems pretty judgemental to me. You’re a woman of your age and act like a racist 12 year old in high school who’s just opened out to the world. Get over it, this world is multicultural it cannot just be one race/religion etc. I am a Muslim and I respect other religions very much, including Jews. So how about you also stop building all this hatred and do the same.

Hope on January 27, 2013 at 6:04 am


    They try to tell me my religion is wrong

    They try to tell me to follow Islam

    They said their prophet was a righteous dude

    But I found out none of their words were true

    I read the Quran and I read the hadith

    And the sickness of Muhammad was apparent to me

    He justified perversion in the name of Allah

    When he married a girl too young for a bra


    She was playing with dolls when the prophet came

    Her childhood was stolen in Allah’s name

    Aisha was nine when he took her to bed

    Don’t tell me that fool’s not sick in the head

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.


    The sickness of the Islamic mind

    Has caused the Mullahs to be blind

    To justify their prophet they would justify sin

    So the sins of the prophet are repeated again

    All over the world in Islamic states

    9 year old girls suffer cruel fate

    Sold into marriage to twisted men

    And Aisha’s sad story is repeated again


    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    Do you care about women all over the world?

    Do you care about those little girls?

    Then stand up and fight for human rights

    Speak out against the laws of Islam


    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester, sex offender, prophet pretender.

    Ain’t gonna follow no child molester,

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    Islam is not for me.

    Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 6:16 pm



“I once had a dream, but after Obama, it has become a nightmare”!

“A mulatto has done more harm to the Negro cause than any KKK Grand Knight could do in a 1000 years”.

“I wish I could go back to sleep, but I’m afraid of what that clown will do.”!

Larry Silverstein on November 8, 2013 at 6:13 pm

Dear debbie.
I came across your insightful but flawed article when i was researching for you guessed black muslims and martin luther king for my masters. Let me get your facts straight since you havent the slightest idea about what you write this long article. I agree with John
1) Muslims do not promote hatred, violence or terrorism at all costs. Muslims also advocate for a seperate state for Israel,again this is a political agenda for those who are also politically minded. Maybe meet a muslim, talk to a muslim, go to a mosque. Open up your eyes to a beautiful world where everyone is not narrowminded. “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Dr. Martin Luther King
2) Black Muslims are not really “muslim” thus your entire article is debunked. find out what traditional islam taught, look up why Malcolm x became a sunni muslim after a pilgrimage to Hajj. Look up nation of islam, a black muslim organization and maybe read one article or two, of scholarly significance before you try to spread your antimuslim agenda everywhere. “”The term “Black Muslims,” [was] coined by Dr. C. Eric Lincoln in 1956 to refer specifically to the Nation of Islam”
3)You are disgracing Dr.King when you use his day of remembrance to spread your own hatred. “Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” (Dr.King)

Black Muslim researcher on December 6, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Black Muslim researcher on December 6, 2013 at 10:52 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field