January 20, 2014, - 1:13 pm

Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Pro-Israel, Said Anti-Israel is Anti-Semitic; Muslims Hijack His Name Like 9/11

By Debbie Schlussel

As you know, today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. And, each year, this day serves as a reminder for those who know–and information for those who do not–that Martin Luther King was pro-Israel and said those who are anti-Israel are really just anti-Semites. He was right then. His words are right, now. Since nothing has changed–Martin Luther King, Jr.’s support for Israel is a fact and Muslims hijack his good name each year like it’s a plane and use his memory like it is their underwear bomb–I am reposting what I have posted for a few years now, below. Facts are stubborn things. And the facts are these: King was pro-Israel and a philo-Semite, and Jew-hating, anti-Israel Muslims (a redundant phrase) continue to ignore that because they make up “the facts” for propaganda purposes to foment their evil and hate. As I always say, their experience in hijacking wasn’t just confined to 9/11. (Also, please read this short summary of, “What Would Martin Say?,” a great book by Joel Engel and King friend Clarence B. Jones on what King would have thought about illegal aliens, anti-Semitism, and other issues.)

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

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.

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. Again, facts are stubborn things. Sadly, Muslim propagandists–those who use the King name to justify jihad and typical every day Muslim intolerance and refusal to live as civilized Westerners in the Western World–are more stubborn.

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

37 Responses

They attempt to assume the aura of a man that they could never be.

Worry01 on January 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Unfortunately it is not only the Muslims who hijack Martin Luther King.

The entire political establishment hijacks him also. That is part of the reason that Muslims are able to get away with what they are doing. The political establishment deliberately de-emphasizes King’s actual beliefs and actions, and instead places the emphasis on the evil White racism that it claims still exists.

When we are asked to ‘reflect’ on what MLK stood for, we are really being asked by the liberals and their Republican friends to reflect on our own ‘racism’. The propaganda around MLK day is being used to reinforce absurd concepts like disparate impact and racial profiling; it is used to reinforce and strengthen affirmative action, further politicize educational curricula, and heighten sensitivity to presumed racial slights, the universe of which expands on a never-ending basis.

The political brainwashing continues next month with Black History Month, another opportunity to chastise all of the Whites.

Little Al on January 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    And, as an elaboration, King’s pro-Israel policies are especially downplayed by the political, journalistic, and academic establishments.

    Little Al on January 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm

America is being bled to death by p.c. witch-hunts.

DS_ROCKS! on January 20, 2014 at 3:44 pm

Why don’t we mark George Washington’s birthday with the same sort of reverence reserved for MLK? What about Lincoln’s birthday?

Jonathan E. Grant on January 20, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Sorry Jonathan but Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a pure political statement at that time to satisfy the Radical Republicans of his time. Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo will back me up on this one.

    Lincoln had paid the natives in Liberia for land so that he could herd Blacks in boats back to Africa and on into Liberia.

    Lincoln best asset was he was a horse trader who actually hated Blacks.

    Confederate South on January 21, 2014 at 12:12 am

      William T. Sherman hated the blacks and called them the ‘N’ word in written correspondence and spoken word , as he crossed Georgia. He also promised to hang any of his troops caught giving the blacks who followed his army ANY FOOD or other supplies owned by the US Army. W.T. was a tough old bird. WINNING was ALL he cared about.

      He also left over 300 black women and children on the banks of river outside Savannah and took the black men with his troops to act as rode builders, latrine diggers and other VERY menial jobs. THEY were promised pay and they never got it.

      Those women and children on the river bank were left to the mercy of Confederate General Fighting Joe Wheeler. Well, that Confederate General fed those blacks but on a bad note, he tried to return them to their owners. … who also had no food and some no shelter.

      Such is war… and the US Civil WAR was as brutal as any other.

      The history of such a war is really convoluted, twisted and a lesson in looking at ALL sides before coming to a conclusion.
      THE South lost but so did the North… just in different ways.

      It is just ME AGAIN on January 21, 2014 at 3:14 pm

“Since nothing has changed–Martin Luther King, Jr.’s support for Israel is a fact and Muslims hijack his good name each year like it’s a plane and use his memory like it is their underwear bomb”

LOL, it’s funny because it’s true.

Frankz on January 20, 2014 at 4:55 pm

Whatever. Keep the MLK fantasy alive at all costs. Some obviously need it but here’s some truth.

MLK was a plagiarist. 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation for his Phd was flat-out stolen. He never earned a Phd and plagiarized his entire way through school.

MLK was a serial adulterer. On the night before his assasination, MLK was involved in a drunken orgy with three prostitutes he paid for with Church money and had brought to his hotel room. One of the prostitutes was severely beaten by him.

Many myths continue today about MLK as documented by Marcus Epstein


Think what you want but know some truth…

meir khane rules on January 20, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    If you can’t get what you want hijacking the plane then blow it up.

    Frankz on January 20, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Mier khane rules, is this the same Marcus Epstein that karate chopped a black woman in 2007 while dropping the n-word on her? The same Marcus Epstein that writes for publications with neo-nazi ties? For you to use Epstein’s writngs on MLK would be like someone using Muslim Brotherhood’s writings on Debbie Schlussel as evidence against her. You already know the writings are severely tainted. Whenever someone hates you guts, whatever they have to say about you is “questionable”, to say the least…..

    DonQ on January 20, 2014 at 8:28 pm

    Why have you misspelled R’ Kahane’s name?

    skzion on January 20, 2014 at 11:33 pm

      Well, between having AIDS and being in Hell, I’d say having his name misspelled is small potatoes, Gay Obama.

      That dogf**ker might as well be a hajji himself, what with his paint-chip-eating cretin mentality. There’s no hard and fast rule for converting his name into English – the alphabets are not synced up, and people make their best guess, phonetically speaking that is. I see no reason why that kiddy-diddler’s own transliteration of his name is entitled to any special preference.

      EsEm on January 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Since black urban youth has turned away from MLK in favor of the more trendy, less demanding jive artist Malcolm X the results have been more or less what you’d expect.

Umar Lee explains why –

although the truth may have been to much bear, I think he may have done a double “revert” although I have no idea.

Frankz on January 20, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Yes, I know Umar Lee is not really black but black is a state of mind right?

Frankz on January 20, 2014 at 5:32 pm

I have a dream that someday men and women of prominence will remain faithful to their spouses. I also have a dream that someday we’ll only honor and revere people who are completely good and not have to honor and revere people who were mostly good and be required to overlook some significant moral failures.

Some say I’m dreamer but I’m not the only one…

Matt on January 20, 2014 at 8:49 pm

I’d agree with Al that continuous attempts to hijack MLK have been carried out not only by CAIR, but by other groups as well, with a mission to promote hate and division–exactly the opposite of what MLK sought to do. Thus, the information in this article is well worth repeating and emphasizing.

We should also note that MLK knew well that Jews helped to make civil rights a reality for black people in the USA. They were there at the start, long before MLK became involved. They were working right along with him when he came into prominence. And they have continued to work to advance civil rights after MLK’s murder.

MLK knew that Julius Rosenwald (the founder of Sears), Rabbi Stephen Wise, and Rabbi Emil Hirsch were active in helping civil rights to become a reality.

MLK’s right-hand-man, Stanley Levison, was a Jew. Now, I know well that Levison had a problematic background. In the 1950s, he was affiliated with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and on that basis, J. Edgar Hoover, then head of the FBI, wanted to–and got approval–to wiretap MLK. But there is no evidence that Levison continued any affiliation with CPUSA in the late 1950s or the 1960s. You can be sure that if the FBI were ever able to establish a link to Communist activities (and I’m sure they tried very hard to do so), there would have been some documentation about that at some point in time. But there is nothing. (However, the FBI did tape MLK’s various affairs, which is one source of our knowledge about that.)

In more recent years, Jew have continued to help blacks in so many ways. For example, in 1990, Walter Annenberg gave $50 million (equivalent to about $87 million today) to historically black private colleges. Annenberg believed, as perhaps the majority of Jews do, that education is a critical key to economic betterment.

And I also see on this board that there are those who seek to denigrate MLK’s work by characterizing him as a serial adulterer and plagiarist. So to address that, yes, MLK was not a saint. Neither was JFK. They were both enormously charismatic leaders who had character weaknesses and who succumbed to various vices, unable or unwilling to resist those temptations. But their vices were not the measure of their true characters. They were each complex persons, with high ideals and strong convictions, but with great flaws and weaknesses as well.

Yes, you could choose to focus on their flaws and say that was all there was to them. Or you choose to focus on them as saints who could do not wrong. Either view is a myth, however, and such demonizations don’t reflect the true “balance sheet” of each man’s assets, liabilities, and net worth in terms of character.

I like to use Frank Sinatra as another example of this, as Sinatra was a man of the same times as JFK and MLK and he knew both of them, and actively supported each as well. Sinatra was also a serial adulterer, but he was also a boozer, and was known to be abusive, cruel, and hostile at times. Sure, we could “sum up” Sinatra in that way, but that part of his “balance sheet” is relatively small when one considers the whole man. What about Sinatra the singer, the actor, the artist, the businessman, and the philanthropist? Those are the real measures of the man, and those will be the things that he will be remembered for. Check out this clip of Frank Sinatra receiving an Oscar for the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award (and he really earned it, unlike some others). Also note that Coretta Scott King, MLK’s widow, is in the audience (to the left of Rosalind Russell in the cutaway, in the row in front of her). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_dGbyb7p0o

Ralph Adamo on January 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm

Ralph, although I agree with your remarks in general, I am less confident in coming to a definitive conclusion about Mr. Levison. The contents of many files which would give more information, both American and Russian, are not available for public inspection, and it is not clear what they would reveal about Levison.

For all of its reputation, the FBI was not always completely on top of the Communist menace, and was subjected to political pressure just as were many others in Government.

Even if Levison cut his organizational ties, this does not necessarily mean a lot, as there have been many secret Communists over the decades.

Also, many who left the Communist Party in the 50s, especially in the internecine battles of the Party, came back under the influence, at least ideologically of the Communist Party in the 60s when there was an upsurge in leftist political activity. The civil rights and Vietnam anti-War movements were full of such people.

In the last years of his life, MLK without doubt lent his name to organizations containing Communists, especially in the anti-Vietnam War activities. So I think the jury is still out on Levison.

Little Al on January 20, 2014 at 9:29 pm

    Al, according to the research I’ve been able to gather, Levison, if anything, was more a communist in theory than in practice. Certainly the FBI was unable to establish that Levison had any Soviet connections.

    According to biographer David J. Garrow, author of “The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.” and “Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,” the FBI was provided “with ironclad evidence” that Levison had severed ties with Communist Party USA:

    “[T]he FBI conveyed that crucial news to absolutely no one outside the Bureau, not even the Attorney General. At a March 19 lunch with his old colleague Lem Harris, Levison said-—as Harris recounted in a memo that Jack Childs passed on to the FBI—-that “a whole group, formerly closely aligned with us, and over many years most generous and constant in their support,” had now concluded that “the CP is ‘irrelevant’ and ineffective,” and would supply no further support. The Harris memo was confirmed by what an FBI wiretap overheard Stanley telling Roy the very next day about his conversation with Harris: “I was tough, and I think I established my firm view, firm position.”

    “Levison’s break with the CPUSA was unknown to Burke Marshall, to Robert Kennedy, and to President John F. Kennedy when all three men reiterated to King in mid-June of 1963 that he must separate himself from Levison and O’Dell. Within days another leak to a newspaper revealing O’Dell’s continued presence at the SCLC led King to announce O’Dell’s resignation. Soon after that Levison himself, fully aware of the alarm that the Kennedys were voicing about him to King, told King that with Congress about to begin consideration of the Kennedys’ landmark civil-rights bill, he and King had no choice but to put an end to direct contact with each other. “I induced him to break,” Levison told the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1976. “The movement needed the Kennedys too much. I said it would not be in the interests of the movement to hold on to me if the Kennedys had doubts.”

    Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2014 at 12:50 am

      I don’t want to prolong this, so this will be my final comment. Garrow’s books are anecdotal in tone, and not written in a scholarly manner. In any secondary book, the sources relied on for any statement like that are key.

      Levison’s own statements have to be seen as potentially self-serving, and the 1963 discussion certainly seems as though Levison was being opportunistic in his abandonment of Communism. It is striking how few of the left-wingers from the 1960s have every disavowed their radical beliefs. Separating from Communism because he was ‘asked to’?

      Communists don’t work that way. They are sneaky, and it is most unlikely that in a time period when left-wing politics were strengthening rather than weakening, Levison would have discarded his extreme beliefs. As I said, it is theoretically possible, but would be unlike traditional Communist behavior.

      Kind of like our President’s separation from Ayers and Wright?

      Little Al on January 21, 2014 at 1:58 am

        Ralph, I needed to add one addendum.

        While I respect your views, your passage doesn’t state the year in which this conference took place, although it appears to be from the early 60s. I should also note that leaving the Communist party because it was ‘irrelevant and ineffective’ by no means denotes a break from left-wing politics. Most who considered the Communist Party irrelevant and ineffective during the 60s considered themselves to the left of it, and many actually continued to be in the Communist Party’s orbit.

        And breaking because ‘the movement needed the Kennedys too much’? It is hard to accept that as a serious rationale. Again, calls to mind Obama’s ‘breaking’ with Ayers and Wright because the country needs Obama too much.

        I don’t want to disparage King’s positive accomplishments, and his support of Israel does denote a degree of independence from the Communists, but MLK certainly did not have the hostility to Communism that characterized people like Whitney Young, Roy Wilkins and Bayard Rustin in the 60s.

        Little Al on January 21, 2014 at 2:27 am

          Al, Thanks for your thoughts. I don’t own Garrows books, and thus did not know whether or not he provided competent sources/endnotes, as most good history books do. However, we do know from other sources that the Kennedy brothers did contact MLK about their concerns of his association with Levison that must have arose in connection with the FBI’s file on Levison. And we also know from other sources that Levison did agree to separate himself from MLK and his organization. So it would seem fair to conclude that the Kennedys were trying to help keep MLK free of communist associations and infiltrators and that Levison and/or MLK responded to their “suggestions”–or, least, that’s my take on what was going on.

          The fact after all of these years that the “best” documentation/wiretaps, etc. that the FBI was able to come up with only pointed to MLK sexual indiscretions would seem to also indicate that MLK had few communist associations.

          Also, I note that after MLK’s death, other “civil rights” activists that were in competition with MLK or advocated more extreme actions clearly did have communist connections. Angella Davis and others associated with The Black Panthers, for example, come to mind. Ironically, in my view, after MLK’s death, the communists have substantially succeeded in coopting Black America–and the destruction of the family unit to a great extent was an important part of their strategy. Clearly, MLK, for all his personal faults, did recognize the importance of the family structure and the need for education for economic advancement.

          Ralph Adamo on January 22, 2014 at 7:28 pm

Like most Baptists pastors back then and MOST today, Dr. King and his father were pro-Israel.

Wasn’t it a black muslim who shot and killed his mother during a church service in Atlanta back in the 1980s?

It is just ME AGAIN on January 20, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Hey Debbie,I have three cue sticks at home,I want to stick them in your three holes and make them deeper!

concerned on January 20, 2014 at 10:45 pm

    Hey concerned Mooooslim, I always smile when Mooooslims are killed.

    skzion on January 20, 2014 at 11:38 pm

    Debbie, kindly “whisk ‘concerned’ into the cornfield.” Thanks.

    Ralph Adamo on January 21, 2014 at 12:40 am

    You slime ball Muslims are always so obvious with your obsession with sexual violence by objects and, of course, your Freudian obsession with orifices. May I suggest you insert those cue sticks into your own orifices, sideways.

    Pray Hard on January 21, 2014 at 10:05 am

Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.

Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.

Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.

Myth # 5: King supported the free market.

Myth # 6: King was a conservative.

Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.

Jaws on January 21, 2014 at 9:36 am

Next year on MLK Day, I’m going to find a MLK celebration and make myself sick on bar-b-que, fried chicken and potato salad. I’m way past expecting “heroes” to be perfect or even needing heroes. None are. Take whatever is good for you, then move on. We have much bigger problems that whether MLK was perfect or good … It’s called Islam.

Pray Hard on January 21, 2014 at 10:14 am

To put this thread to rest…

Many people (read: modern young Afro-Americans – present company excepted) prefer the badass imagery of Malcolm X, the slacker-bandit legend of Che Guevara or the militant-turned-scholar mythos of Nelson Mandela than the relatively benign serenity of MLK.

So what if the man loves his ‘hos: he has faults like the rest of us. And I consider myself a slacker screwup at times, so who am I to judge?

I’ll leave it up to history to see who is the better emancipator.

The Reverend Jacques on January 23, 2014 at 12:17 pm

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

That would be blasphemy, for all the Abed (Black/slave) hating Arabs, who see Islam as a religion for ‘Whites’ (i.e. Arabs, not Caucasians or Aryans) MLK probably had a good idea of what Muslims really thought – and think – about Blacks.

Infidel on January 24, 2014 at 6:48 am

Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man who achieved equality for African-Americans through non-violence. Then the White Guilt party in Congress corrupted this by adding rules to the Civil Rights Law to give preference to special interest groups. Nowhere did King want preferences, just equality. Then we get the Jesse Jacksons, the Ralph Farakkhans and the Al Sharptons who have made a substantial living by trying to divide the country instead of helping the Black man and woman to attain higher education, retain the complete family entity, and work hard to achieve success. As an American Jew, G-d Bless Martin Luther King, Jr. and long live his memory.

NormCBS on January 24, 2014 at 3:48 pm

I would like to make one factual point for whatever it’s worth. The Jews have never been Semites. Why? A Semite means a descendent of Shem, Noah’s son. A Jew means a descendent of Judah. Judah married a Canaanite woman (read the Bible). Canaan was in the line of Ham and not Shem. So Jews have been half Hamites from day one. Arabs are descendents of Shem and rightly Semites. The Jews, therefore, are the most anti-semitic people today.

MLK was a communist and stooge who knew on what side his bread was buttered. He was financed by the Julius Rosenwald Fund. The purpose of this fund was to communize the negro.

mark on April 4, 2014 at 2:39 am

I think that is a provocative qesution and the answer is probably the same as it was 40 years ago. For most foundations, including most that are self identified as liberal, a resounding NO. From what I understand, to the extent that the Southern Christian Leadership Council was funded, it was a few unions, the national offices of Protestant denominations, and a handful of individuals. I don’t think it is any worse today, but certainly not any better.

Sanjay on April 22, 2014 at 5:00 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field