How Long can the Truth be Hidden? How Long? Not Long! Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican!

The truth has a funny way of finally being brought to light. 

In a 2008 Associated Press story, King’s son and namesake Martin Luther King III said: "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican." 

As I will show below, his statement is not true and not supported by historical facts.

In 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph D. Abernathy voted for the Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.  He later told Nixon of his vote during a public meeting in Ghana, where they were attending a presidential inauguration.  Also, Daddy King (father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and nearly all of the most powerful preachers of the National Baptist Convention were life-long Republicans.

Dr. King’s niece, Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America, also verified, "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." It is easily verifiable that MLK subscribed to Republican values, such as freedom, self-reliance and liberty, and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.   

On June 23, 1958, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower invited Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to the White House to discuss the progress he was making on Civil Rights. Other African American leaders in the meeting included Roy Wilkins, Lester Granger and A. Philip Randolf.

 Dr. Kenneth W. Goings, professor and past chairman of the Department of African American and African Studies at Ohio State University, said in an email message that King may have had to register as a Republican to vote in Alabama in the 1950s. Goings said: "Daddy King was a Republican as were most African Americans in the South until the early 1940s. But the combination of Dem. Party outreach and Republican Southern strategy meant that by the 1950s the South was well on the way to the split that is evident now. I’ve not seen any written evidence that MLK Jr. was a Republican, but if he registered to vote it would have been as a Republican in Alabama simply because the Dems. would not allow black voters." My Lord, Black Americans, wake up! "Dems would not allow black voters"?!

To show his appreciation to President Kennedy for releasing him from jail, Dr. King was strongly advised by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, that he should not align himself with the Republican Party.  Yet, he refused to align himself with the Democratic Party.  The fact of the matter is this, he had "very positive feelings" about Republican Richard Nixon in the late 1950s and "extremely positive feelings" about Republican Nelson Rockefeller, the New York governor who later served as vice president. Dr. King became "a very harsh critic" of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson over his escalation of the Vietnam War and "wouldn't necessarily have backed (Democratic presidential nominee) Hubert Humphrey in '68 had he (King) lived."

During my congressional campaign, I was pleased to see the responses from citizen voters in Memphis when asked if Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican.  Very few black Americans showed surprise. I spoke to quite a number of people who understood history and knew the truth in their hearts concerning Dr. Martin Luther King’s convictions, for others, it was an education.

I believe in my heart that we can bring about liberty and prosperity, starting in Memphis and spreading throughout the nation, as we get back to the true message of Dr. King, which is that of freedom, liberty, and self-respect; and judging a person by their character, not by the color of their skin.  Dr. Martin Luther King fought, not just for civil rights for African Americans, but for social justice for all.  That's what keeps his mission compellingly alive. He understood that the Republican Party of Lincoln was the party of freedom, self-reliance and liberty. He did not come to Memphis to fight for the sanitation workers so that they could receive government handouts. He fought for their right to equal pay and dignity, which included fair treatment on their JOBS.

To whom did Dr. King make his appeals for freedom? He wrote a letter of thanks to  President Dwight Eisenhower for providing escorts and protection for the nine black students' entering Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school, for the first time since the Reconstruction era, against the directives of Arkansas governor, Orval Faubus (D).  Numerous times, he contacted Senator Everett Dirksen (R-Ill.), who was a civil rights hero.  During his sixteen years in the House of Representatives, Dirksen voted for anti-poll-tax and anti-lynching measures, and ended a record-breaking Democrat- led filibuster, that had consumed fifty-seven working days, against the passage of the Civil Rights Bill. Dirksen stood for civil rights, in spite of receiving little support among Chicago’s black voters and he was picketed at his home by rights activists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (left), Senator Everett Dirksen, R-Ill. (right), and John Lewis (far right) meet shortly before King's "I Have a Dream" speech during the March on Washington in August 1963.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Senator Everett Dirksen and freedom fighters from all over (which included blacks and whites), fought for liberty during the Civil Rights movement. Without their sacrifice, I feel as though it would have been difficult to obtain the type of life, or educational and employment opportunities that I have had. I'm not even sure if I'd be alive today, if it had not been for those heroic freedom fighters.

What Dr. King did not know was that history would be rewritten through slander, fear and flat out lies about what the Republican Party represents. In order to keep the lie alive, it became necessary to keep tension and separation going between the political parties. Therefore, just before every election, mind-control accusations of racism would start, which invoked an unnecessary fear of a return to slavery.  For example, VP Joe Biden, recently quoted, “‘gonna to put y’all back in chains.’ Quotes like that have worked for over 60 years in our Black American communities. What have we gotten for our loyalty?

I grew up in a family which hung two pictures on the wall. The first was of Jesus breaking bread with his twelve disciples at the ‘Last Supper.’ The other was that of Dr. Martin Luther King, flanked on both sides by our slain 37th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his brother, Senator Robert Kennedy.  While in school, we were taught to say the president's full name, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which demonstrated the respect our teachers gave to our 37th president. We would also start each morning by reading a scripture and afterwards, pledging allegiance to the flag, which reinforced what we learned at home concerning respect for religion and our country.  Those two pictures molded many young lives, mine included. They both said that Jesus, Dr. King, President Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy were to be our life models. The Kennedys represented the Democratic Party. At that time, the party was viewed differently. 

Dr. Martin Luther King spoke loud and often, in the final days of his life, about economic injustice, about poverty and freedom. But, he would be appalled at how his sacrifice has been twisted to shatter lives and destroy the incentive to reach one's full potential, since the government has come in, like a cancer, killing the cells of drive and self-determination, and replacing them with a life-long dependency on what is falsely seen as the "cure":  the government drugs of welfare, free phones, free healthcare and yes, food stamps.  

Dr.  King very wisely labeled the last act of his epic, but short life, the "Poor People's Campaign", because he understood that while racism was (and is) a great oppressive force in our land, freedom can be had as a result of a good education and hard work. Millions upon millions of Americans are habitually looking for employment only to experience more discouragement and desperation. Sadly, today, many people have not been taught how jobs are created and the fundamentals of economics. The current administration does not understand how powerful an unshackled free market is for job creation.  

I am in the poverty-class for now, and I have come from generations of poverty, dating back to American slavery in the 1800s. What I have, which they did not have, is an education. A chance to live in a country, which under normal circumstances would allow me to achieve riches, through hard work and integrity.  But I, like  Dr. King, I have a dream. That dream is that Memphis, Tennessee, the place where he lost his life, in a horrific assassination, where the seed of the 20^th century slavery began, will be the place where,  though we have taken a 50 year detour,  we will finally get to the ‘Promise Land.’

PolitiFact's report about the Bergmann's billboard http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

http://wreg.com/2012/10/26/texas-billboards-claim-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-a-republican/

  ~Brought to you by CharlottePAC and Lynne Roberts, COO Frederick Douglass Republicans/Liberty Messenger

You Won't Have Both: You Pick: Your Job or Your Health Insurance

Let's face it.  Employers are letting employees know that for the people who sign their paychecks---their future depends on the employee voting for a President who is good for business.

According to Finance Town Hall, the signature achievement of President Obama's four years of office was the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. "ObamaCare". Passed into law in 2010, and initially upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, ObamaCare has had an ongoing negative effect upon the employment situation in the United States since it was crammed through the House of Representatives and the Senate solely by members of the Democratic party.

Unfortunately for Americans, the ObamaCare job killing spree will only continue and get worse. The reason why has to do with a penalty tax that will be imposed upon all U.S. employers with 50 or more employees who currently provide their employees with what would be considered to be an "average" health insurance coverage plan today.

The Manhattan Institute's Diana Furchtgott-Roth explains how that works:

... if an employer offers insurance, but an employee qualifies for subsidies under the new health care exchanges because the insurance premium exceeds 9.5 percent of his income, his employer pays a penalty of $3,000 per worker. This combination of penalties gives a business a powerful incentive to downsize, replace full-time employees with part-timers, and contract out work to other firms or individuals.

The new law will make it harder for small businesses with 50 or more employees to compete with those with fewer than 50 employees.

When the employer mandates are phased in 2014, many businesses will be motivated to reduce the number of locations and move workers from full-time to part-time status. This will reduce employment still further and curtail the country’s economic growth.

Let's get a sense of how many people that might affect. Today, over 90 million Americans, or 75% of all working Americans, are employed by firms that have 50 or more employees. With the average annual cost of employer-provided health insurance premiums for Single coverage set at $5,615, employers will only avoid ObamaCare's employer penalty head tax of $3,000 for their employees who earn more than $59,105 per year.

That's well above the $39,372 that represents the median income earned by Americans employed full-time, year round in 2011. 

Employee's Options:  choose the Patient Protection and Affordable Act (Obamacare) or choose no job to pay for the premiums.  Does an employer have the right to force that option?  It's legal!

Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org.

How to “Soak the Rich,” Keep Tax Rates Low

I'm in total SHOCK!  The Tennessean newspaper has endorsed Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, today.  

Why?  It is because according to the Tennessean, the economy is paramount. According to the Tennessean,  It's 'Time for Another Change.'  They go on to say, America needs strong leadership; yet, our leaders in Washington have seldom looked more impotent.  

One of the key ways to build this economy again, is to keep tax rates low.


During the vice presidential debate between Congressman Paul Ryan and Vice President Joe Biden, Ryan said Republicans would work with Democrats in Congress to lower federal income tax rates 20%, while denying many existing deductions used by taxpayers. He defended Romney against charges he will not specify the deductions he would target.

"What we're saying is here's our framework,'' Ryan said.

Biden said the GOP ticket will keep loopholes for wealthy investors by taxing capital gains at lower rates than regular income. He said Ryan's proposal, to lower rates and still preserve some deductions, was "impossible'' to achieve without raising taxes on the middle class or growing deficits.

Here is a part of that dialogue:

Ryan. It is mathematically possible. It's been done before. It's precisely what we're proposing.
Biden. (Chuckles....showing all pearly whites) It has never been done before.
Ryan. It's been done a couple of times, actually.
Biden. It has never been done before.

Well, here are two examples of when the tax rate was lowered and revenue increased.


Results of Lower Taxes Paid in 1980 & 1988

There’s lots of data here, but pay close attention to the columns on the right and see how much income tax was collected from the rich in 1980, when the top tax rate was 70 percent, and how much was collected from the rich in 1988, when the top tax rate was 28 percent.

The key takeaway is that the IRS collected fives times as much income tax from the rich when the tax rate was far lower. This isn’t just an example of the Laffer Curve. It’s the Laffer Curve on steroids and it’s one of those rare examples of a tax cut paying for itself.

I have confidence that we can teach folks on the left that tax policy affects incentives to earn and report taxable income. 

Results of Lower Taxes Paid in 1964

In 1964 Congress passed, and Lyndon Johnson signed into law, a big income-tax cut that had originally been proposed by John F. Kennedy. The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. The middle rates dropped from 59 and 62 percent to 45 percent, which represented a cut of 24 percent to 27 percent. So we start out with one significant difference between the Kennedy and the Romney plan. Romney and Ryan want to lower taxes by the same amount for all brackets, high and low. Kennedy (really, Johnson) lowered taxes more at the middle and especially at the bottom than he did at the top.

In each case, the end results were a restoration of economy freedom and additional revenues.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence ~ John Adams.

Will these facts have a bearing on the upcoming election?  We may know the answer to this question on November 7, 2012...unless we have a repeat of the Bush v Gore 2000 presidential election.

Brought to you by CharlottePAC.com.

The Unintended Consequences of Affirmative Action - 2012

Arthur Fletcher is known as the father of affirmative action and equal-opportunity laws, and he had a long career serving Republican presidents.  An African American and a Republican, he served in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

As head of the United Negro College Fund, he coined their famous slogan, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."  Arthur Fletcher’s affirmative action was based on equal opportunity through merit, not skin color or entitlement.  Today, affirmative action is a tool liberals use to peel back the scab of a wound which should be allowed to heal, but can't. The idea of affirmative action was rejected by liberals when Art Fletcher was presenting a case for it. The unflappable Art Fletcher continued with his mission – to present 'Merit Based Affirmative Action' to the United States. Constantly, he met adversity from liberal civil rights groups who could not understand how he could do this without their permission.  There were congressional hearings and liberals would come in opposing his views and ideas.  The unions decided to “buy” influence within these groups and, perhaps, slow or even dismantle his efforts.  Year after year Art would go to the annual convention of the NAACP and request a resolution of support for Affirmative Action.  

And year after year the union influence would forbid the management of the NAACP to raise the issue.  In fact, it was not until 1990 that the NAACP proposed and passed a resolution supporting Affirmative Action, 21 years after the Philadelphia Plan signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  In the Philadelphia Plan, Executive Order 8802, Roosevelt declared that the policy of the government was to encourage full participation in national defense programs by all U.S. citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin. Admittedly, at one time there was a need for affirmative action.

Unfortunately, liberals have taken a tool which was needed in its day and have exploited it.  Now, 60 years later, affirmative action hurts those it was intended to help.  The blatant discrimination that existed fifty or a hundred years ago is all but completely gone.

Affirmative action has now has been turned by the liberals into an unfair quota system and now, just as with the dinosaurs, for the unqualified, it’s time has come and gone.  

Where has commonsense gone?

Brought to you by CharlottePAC.org

President Obama is Still a Very Popular President! Find out Why.

Why the Obama bubble still hasn't burst

How is it that, after almost four years of terrible economic results that Obama's persona is not more tarnished?

Can the same thing happen in politics? Can a skilled politician, who has become popular with soaring rhetoric and promises, deflate when it starts becoming clear that he is not going to deliver?

Of course, I am thinking about our president.

Mitt Romney demonstrated in the first presidential debate that the considerable gap between President Barack Obama's rhetoric and his performance makes him a vulnerable candidate.

Yet, the president's bubble is far from bursting.

Romney, in the debate, was aggressive but deferential toward Obama. He was deferential because, despite the poor state of the country after almost four years of the Obama administration, Barack Obama is still a popular president.

Recent polling shows his approval remains around 50 percent. At similar stages in the presidencies of the last two presidents voted out after one term, George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, their popularity ratings were in the 30s.

What accounts for Barack Obama's Teflon? How is it that, after almost four years of terrible economic results -- high unemployment, sluggish growth, huge deficits and mounting national debt -- that Obama's persona is not more tarnished?

Shouldn't today's economic facts on the ground be sufficient to puncture the Obama bubble?

One part of the answer to this puzzle is the changing demographics of the country.

The United States today is a nation that is much less white, much less married and less traditional than it once was. These are growing trends and each reflects in at least some large part constituencies with values supportive of Obama's worldview -- activist government and moral relativism.

What was once the exception to the rule in America -- not being white, not being married, not having traditional views on family, sex and abortion -- is now becoming the rule. And these constituencies are becoming sufficiently large to elect a president.

National Journal released a poll right before the debate showing Obama and Romney dead even nationwide -- 47 percent each -- among likely voters.

The poll shows Obama's white support at just 38 percent.

Obama was elected in 2008 with 43 percent of the white vote. It appears that he could be re-elected with even less.

In Gallup's polling of last week, Obama's approval among white voters stood at 39 percent.

He gets 38 percent approval among those who attend church weekly compared to 55 percent among those who attend church seldom or never.

And his approval among married voters is 40 percent compared to 57 percent among those not married.

According to data compiled by the Tax Foundation, the large majority of those now filing tax returns in the United States are single. In 1960, 65 percent of all tax filers were married and 35 percent single. In 2010, it was reversed -- 61 percent of filers were single and 39 percent married.

When Obama pushes for taxing the rich, he's not just pitting those with the highest incomes against everyone else. He's pitting married against singles. Eight of 10 tax filers in the top 20 percent of earners are married. The majority of filers at the middle income and below are single.

It's really a cultural divide, one you can be sure that Obama is very aware of, that is keeping his bubble inflated.

The fact that Obama's support is still this strong despite his terrible record sends a clear warning to those looking for a new birth of American freedom.

Romney and Rep Paul Ryan should consider taking these constituencies on directly -- blacks, Hispanics, singles -- and explaining why America's future hinges on shutting down the government plantation.

Star Parker         

Check me out at:  http://CharlottePAC.org

29 DAYS -

Although, CharlottePAC has received a facelift, the mission and goals are the same.  

WE'VE GOT 29 DAYS TO 'MITT-R-DONE!'  

CharlottePAC will continue to support conservative candidates, but we have discovered a new group who is looking for a home party which shares their values.


While campaigning for U.S. Congress to represent Tennessee 9th District, I had the honor of attracting the support of a new generation of voters who have not become hardened by the partisan politics.   

Granted, some voting blocs are pretty much locked in  one way or another, but we have been granted a great opportunity as a result of Mitt Romney's debate performance and the stench of the Democrats performance of 'booing' God from their platform.

It is time to strike while the iron is hot.  There really are two voting blocs that can be flipped from overwhelmingly Democrat to overwhelmingly Republican voters.

What voting blocs are these?

These are the so-called “millennial voters,” and the upwardly mobile young black families. 

These are the young people aged 18-35. Some of these people voted for Obama in their first Presidential vote four years ago. This demographic always tilts left. Yet, these are the groups; perhaps the only groups left which can be flipped.  Read more ->->

These are the people CharlottePAC will target to present with the truth and you can become a part of that effort.

Please help by 'liking' CharlottePAC's facebook page or go to the website and sign-up for CharlottePAC's  newsletters.

Thanks for your support!  Invite Charlotte to speak to your group between now and November 5, 2012.  Don't wish for victory on November 6th.

LET'S ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN VICTORY ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012!

Supreme Court opens door to another challenge to Obamacare

Published October 01, 2012

FoxNews.com

• 

Tucked inside the Supreme Court's lengthy list of orders on Monday was an indication that the fight over President Obama's health care law soon could be back before the high court.

Since the court's June decision upholding the law's individual mandate to buy insurance, one of the first Obamacare plaintiffs has been fighting for a new hearing on challenges to other portions of the law.

Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a "tax" before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance. 

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court noted the university's renewed request and gave the administration 30 days to respond to the request, suggesting that the justices are taking the Liberty request seriously.

"I think they've got very good arguments that they're entitled to their day in court," says former senior Justice Department official Thomas Dupree Jr. As an attorney and well-respected court-watcher, Dupree thinks the government will have a challenging time shutting down Liberty's petition.

If it is granted, the case would return to the 4th Circuit, putting it on the fast track back to Washington, D.C.

"Who knows, we might be back here in a year, arguing about the next great Supreme Court health care decision," Dupree speculated.

Lead Liberty attorney Mat Staver called Monday's news "a very positive development." Given the opportunity, Staver plans to renew a number of challenges to the health care law, including arguments related to freedom of religious expression and religious objections to abortion.

PASTORS WILL FINALLY CHALLENGE POLITICS FROM THE PULPIT LAW

The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. 

Pastors are gearing up to challenge the no politics from the pulpit rule. These Pastors will need to demonstrate by their actions whom they will serve, God or Government.  

Thus, the Pastors who choose God are lining up to defy Internal Revenue Service rules against  speaking out concerning elections issues and candidates on October 7, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, approaches. 

The purpose is to make sure the pastor, not the IRS, decides what is said from the pulpit. 

These Pastors will not be fed to the lions like the early Christians for defying the laws, but they will need to know that you will stand behind them as they stand for religious freedom.  

Will you stand with them? Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits on October 7, 2012.