Liberals Al Franken and Joe Conason have written books claiming that that the news media are not as liberal as they seem. But the coverage of the August 23 rally marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and March on Washington demonstrates that the media’s liberal bias is worse than ever. The major media deliberately concealed the facts about how the “civil rights movement” has degenerated into a collection of political extremists, homosexual militants, Muslim activists, and anti-American Marxists.
On a day supposedly dedicated to racial equality, James Zogby of the Arab American Institute told the crowd that the U.S. had brought the people of Iraq “untold pain and chaos” by liberating their country. He attacked Attorney General John Ashcroft for rounding up suspected Muslim terrorists in America after the 9/11 attacks and said that the Bush administration had “gutted and destroyed” the Bill of Rights.
Showing the desperation of the national Democratic Party, three of its presidential candidates, including front-runner Howard Dean, attended this controversial event and sat near King’s widow Coretta Scott King in an effort to woo blacks to their campaigns. But the media didn’t see fit to ask what they were doing in the midst of essentially the same group of activists who had turned out in rallies earlier this year to save Saddam Hussein from a U.S. military invasion.
Another speaker, Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society, used his speech to attack President Bush as a “modern-day Pharaoh.” Bray promoted an upcoming October 25 march on Washington to protest U.S. policy on Iraq, sponsored by International ANSWER, a front group of the communist Workers World Party.
ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, was itself a co-sponsor of this 40th anniversary “civil rights” event in honor of King.
Despite the cries of racism that roared through the nation’s capital that day, dramatic evidence shows that the racism being practiced by the U.S. government consists of discriminating in favor of blacks and other designated minorities in federal hiring.
The web site www.adversity.net has produced an analysis showing not only that federal agencies and departments are using quotas in the hiring of minorities, but that they are exceeding their quotas by enormous margins. This may constitute massive reverse racism against white males.
The results were obtained through an analysis of a report issued by the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Tim Fay, chairman and founder of Adversity.net, said the OPM report, “Annual Report to Congress: Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program,” reveals massive overhiring of protected racial groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and women.
To cite one example of many, the Department of Education regards blacks as being 6.7 percent of the relevant civilian labor force but they comprise a whopping 38.4 percent of those employed at the department. This means that the department employed 473.3% more blacks than their proportion in the civilian work force.
The OPM Report for 2003, which covers fiscal year 2001, shows that, of the new federal jobs created, only 22.9% were filled by white males and other “non-minorities.”
Fay says his analysis of the OPM data “has not received any coverage whatsoever,” even though the group sent out 300 press releases in June to the media on the astonishing results.
Instead, it’s the alleged “underrepresentation” of minorities that receives the press attention. Federal Times newspaper, for example, reports that, “Overall, percentages of blacks, Asians and American Indians in virtually all federal pay grades meet or exceed those of the national work force overall. But in the Senior Executive Service and equivalent senior pay grades, all minority groups are underrepresented as compared with their percentage in the national work force overall.” This is viewed by the press as evidence of racism against the minorities.
So rather than focus on the harm caused by the overhiring of minorities that may constitute reverse racism against white males, the media now push for even more hiring of preferred minorities in the senior ranks.
Fay points out, however, that in order to push minorities into those positions, more experienced whites will have to be bypassed. “And the only way to do that is to reduce qualifications and/or to practice outright discrimination against the white guys and often against Asian-Americans as well,” he says. This is the reality of King’s “dream” today.
It is certainly troubling that The Nation of Islam, led by black racist Louis Farrakhan, was represented on the same podium on August 23 with Martin Luther King III and Coretta Scott King. Farrakhan sent a representative to speak.
The Nation of Islam newspaper, The Final Call, generated controversy just before the march by publishing and then retracting a story claiming that Jesse Jackson had been accused by the King family of complicity in the 1968 assassination of King.
Joining the Nation of Islam as a co-sponsor of the march were such “respectable” groups as the AFL-CIO and the National Education Association.
Marxist Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, one of the organizers of previous “anti-war” rallies, told the crowd that, “U.S. troops are still occupying Iraq in the aftermath of an unjust, immoral and illegal military invasion.” She claimed that in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea, the U.S. had been responsible for the “senseless, cruel deaths” of “people who are not white.”
Billy Thye of the American Indian Movement said the real terrorist in the world was the U.S. government, while Obi Egbuna of the Pan African Liberation Organization praised black racist Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and urged the lifting of the economic embargo of communist Cuba. He said, “We must stand behind Mugabe,” whose policies are starving half of his population. On the other hand, he branded U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell “a murderer.”
Damu Smith of a group called “Black Voices for Peace” attacked the 4 “Cs”-Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and Ward Connerly. They were considered despicable for associating with conservative or Republican causes. Connerly supports Proposition 54, which is on the ballot in California on October 7 and would fulfill the dream of a color-blind society attributed to King by outlawing government collection of data on an individual’s race, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) insisted that homo-sexuals deserve their civil rights, too, and spoke of the fact that 1963 march organizer and King confidante Bayard Rustin had been a (closeted) homosexual. Other homosexual groups sponsoring the rally were the Human Rights Campaign, and Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
On the day of the march, the New York Times gave its approval to this collaborative arrangement by publishing a long story about Rustin’s secret homosexuality and claiming that the civil rights movement had given “birth” to the homosexual rights movement.
Shanta Driver, another speaker, represented a group that operates under the threatening name, “By Any Means Necessary.” The implication is that if black radicals don’t get special benefits, violence could result. The organization, which works with Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH organization, claims to be part of the “new” civil rights movement.
Jackson, whose fathering of an illegitimate child has not deterred his own publicity-seeking activities, was a featured speaker at the rally as well. And like many others, he attacked U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
On the other hand, Jackson has been a strong proponent of sending U.S. military personnel to Liberia, a black African nation with absolutely no national security interest to the United States.
Ignoring this and other controversial aspects of the march, ABC news correspondent Geoff Morell focused on speakers such as Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who had been at the event 40 years ago. Morell claimed that figures supplied by the liberal Children’s Defense Fund, such as that blacks have a higher rate of arrests for crimes, proved that blacks were continuing to be victims of racial discrimination. He ignored the possibility that they were just committing more crimes.
CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras decided to take “a look back” at the rally in 1963, conveniently ignoring the radical nature of the movement that had taken up King’s legacy on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Her story featured touching film clips of the crowd of 40 years ago, estimated at 250,000, singing “We shall overcome” and listening to King’s “I have a dream” speech. The racial discrimination that blacks faced at the time could not be denied and it was at times vicious and violent. Many who followed King did so because they truly wanted to achieve racial equality in the U.S.
But NBC News correspondent Rosiland Jordan’s claim that the crowd of misfits at the 40th anniversary event had “paid tribute to King’s vision of racial equality” was a joke.
Jordan did mention the “more than 100 groups here using the rally to highlight their own agendas for social, economic and political rights” and said it was “surprising to some” that there were so many different groups. But she also claimed that it was consistent with King’s “vision” as outlined by his biographer, David Garrow, who said that King spoke increasingly before his death about “non-violence in the world in foreign policy” and was “attacking poverty, homelessness [and] economic injustice.”
In fact, King had become so radical that he spoke of the U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” for opposing the communist takeover of South Vietnam. In an April 30, 1967 speech at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, King also urged the U.S. to get “on the right side of the world revolution” and attacked “racism, militarism and economic exploitation” carried out by the U.S.
Religious News Service in 1985 had quoted King adviser the Rev. James Cone as saying, “If white people knew what King was about, they would have never named a holiday for him.” Cone was quoted as saying that King “said in private that he was a Marxist.”
Considering that King was surrounded and influenced by communists, as documented in Garrow’s book, The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr, this wasn’t too surprising. However, Cone later said that his remarks had been taken out of context, and that he meant to say that King had become a “democratic socialist.”
Not surprisingly, the coverage of the march and the 40th anniversary of King’s “I have a dream” speech ignored his communist ties and anti-American stance. This continues a media trend that goes back years. There is no major media interest in this facet of King’s life and they actively suppress the truth about it. The same goes for his notorious womanizing. And the media show no interest in demanding release of the federal government’s King files, based on secret surveillance on national security grounds, which have been sealed by a federal judge until 2027.
Rather than get into any of that, even some conservatives have tried to adopt King as one of their own. The Washington Times jumped on the bandwagon by running a Taylor Branch essay about the meaning of the King speech and the text of Lewis’s speech 40 years ago.
On the other hand, when conservative Senator Trent Lott made some light-hearted comments about the late Senator Strom Thurmond’s run for the presidency as a segregationist, some prominent conservatives joined in a liberal media campaign urging Lott to apologize or even resign. Lott was also advised to apologize for having spoken to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group considered pro-Confederacy.
However, when liberal politicians such as Howard Dean show up at a rally featuring hate-America rhetoric, it is treated as just another campaign appearance that the media don’t find controversial.
In another manifestation of this kind of coverage, USA Today ran an August 28 editorial insisting that the “wide variety of groups” at the march illustrated King’s “far-reaching legacy.” It failed to explain how much of a “variety” it was.
The media’s decision to ignore the controversial speakers at the rally reflects obvious concern for the welfare of the Democratic Party, which appeals for votes from the kind of special interests represented in the crowd and at the podium.
Front-runner Dean is already considered to be too far to the left to win against Bush. Dean and other Democrats could be further tainted politically if it were publicized that they participated in such a sordid and extreme affair.
As for the press, many reporters undoubtedly don’t want to critically analyze such a gathering out of fear of being branded as racist.
The Washington Post covered for Dean and the Democrats by referring merely to “a panoply of activists from other causes” in the crowd, carefully omitting any embarrassing details about who was actually there.
Democratic presidential candidates Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun also attended. Sharpton usually attracts press attention, but most of the media ignored his remarks about the less well-known part of King’s “I have a dream” speech in which he talked about America giving blacks “a bad check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.'”
Sharpton took this to mean financial compensation, saying the U.S. needs “a new signer” of the check-a new president who would make the funds available. Major media covering the event managed to avoid camera shots of the posters at the rally that spoke of financial reparations for blacks because of slavery. A group called the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations has put the cost at trillions of dollars.
The website of the organizers picked up this theme, saying, “we return to cash the check.”
King may have spoken eloquently in 1963 of black and white children holding hands, but Drew Hansen, author of the new book, The Dream: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Speech that Inspired a Nation, notes that King himself gave 1967 testimony to a federal commission on the need for the government to “incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps [black people have] inherited from the past.”
Black radical Randall Robinson, founder of TransAfrica, wrote a book, The Debt, urging reparations.
This kind of left-wing radicalism extended to the statements and speeches of the King family itself. USA Today noted in a brief story that Martin Luther King III “updated his late father’s dream for racial equality” with a call for “universal health care” (socialized medicine), “economic parity for minorities” (socialism), and the elimination of “state-sponsored terror-ism” (capital punishment) in the U.S.
On August 28, the actual anniversary date of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and the March on Washington, ABC News ran a special one-hour program narrated by Peter Jennings. The program featured interviews about how the speech came about. But Jennings ignored the evidence that the most famous part of King’s speech was plagiarized.
The Hansen book gets around this delicate subject by acknowledging that the late Rev. Archibald Carey was King’s inspiration for the climax of that famous speech. But Hansen also told Robert Stacy McCain of the Washington Times that King’s speech was “very different” and a “more effective version.”
The facts speak for themselves. Carey delivered his speech at the 1952 GOP convention, ending his remarks by reciting the lyrics of “America” and declaring “let freedom ring!” His concluding comments were, “From every mountain side, let freedom ring. Not only from the Green Mountains and the White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire; not only from the Catskills of New York; but from the Ozarks in Arkansas, from the Stone Mountain in Georgia, from the Great Smokies of Tennessee and from the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia-let it ring.”
King’s speech was similar. “So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire,” said King. “Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.”
Even so, the King family claims a copyright on the speech. On the eve of the rally, New York Post columnist Eric Fettmann wrote a column saying the media can’t reprint or air the entire speech “Because, thanks to Dr. King’s family, getting the legal right to use his words and image would cost too much.”
Fettman noted that the King family sued CBS when it started marketing a documentary featuring nine minutes of the speech, and it sued USA Today when the paper printed the speech on its 30th anniversary. In the former, CBS announced in a settlement that it would make a contribution to the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change run by the King family. CBS had the last word, however, running a “60 Minutes” story in 2001 on how the King family was “Selling the Dream” through such merchandizing schemes.
Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to Kay Coles James, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Nicholas Kristof, New York Times columnist and Bill O’Reilly of Fox News.