Peacefulness, Martin Luther King, Jr.

PEACEFULNESS . . .   Always . . .  Make this pledge to yourself, to your friends, to your enemies.

I will ALWAYS be peaceful.  I will follow the “current law”.  I will return HATE & ANGER, with peace and love.

“The choice is not between violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and nonexistence.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

We currently live in the MOST POWERFUL NATION, MILITARILY, in the world.  Those in CONTROL, will CRUSH and BURY us as quickly as they can.  ANYONE who responds with violence and ANGER loses.  For ALL eternity.  The victors write the history.

What was the percentage of Blacks to Whites in America in 1950’s and 60’s?  4, 5, 6, 7, 8% of the US population? (I did a quick search, couldn’t find it, so please let me know in the comments if  you know.)

UNDENIABLE TRUTH is, well, UNDENIABLE !  No one can argue with the truthfulness and righteousness of this:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, Jr.


Undeniable TRUTH will be accepted by a MAJORITY of AMERICANS.  ALWAYS.  History shows this to be true.  Americans ALWAYS have to backed into the corner of DARKNESS before they see the light. As MLK, Jr. stated:

“Only in the darkness can you see the stars.” 

How ironic:  the current FEDERAL GOVERNMENT judges EVERYONE by the color of their skin, their creed, their gender, or the sexual orientation they identify.

This TRUTH is undeniable.  Truly.  Has MLK’s dream been realized?  Is everything equal now?

Doesn’t the answer beg the question, WHY NOT?

Because the Government MAKES laws which are UNJUST while telling us they are fixing things so the dream will be realized.

PEACEFULNESS, no matter what.

Why do I say this?  Look at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s success.  NO ONE would have listened to him had he responded with Anger , Hate, and violence.  Had Dr. King responded in the usual HUMAN way, he personally, his ideals and humanity’s movement, would have been destroyed, buried, and FORGOTTEN.

How Ironic.  Go read quotes attributed to Martin Luther King, Jr. here.

Truly Amazing.  His views and foundation, in the current day, have been mis-represented by current Progressives.

How Ironic, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.

How Ironic,  Those of us who oppose ALL POWERFUL GOVERNMENT, do so because INDIVIDUALS are no longer men and women, BUT MEMBERS OF A GROUP, A COLLECTIVE.  No longer persons, but now mere “cogs in a wheel to be ORDERED, COERCED, CONTROLLED, DIRECTED.  Look back at the top picture.  

“I am a Man” mean so much more than those 4 words and letters alone say. This is the American IDEAL.

Consider this:

“True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. ” Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Government currently in control IS GOING TO BANKRUPT THE NATION.  The current administration admits they are going to continue on their course.  Only when the inevitable occurs will many victims of the results, realize they have been consistently LIED to, and then “see an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring”.

When the starving masses awaken, because they will, let us be the ones, they will look to as we have conducted ourselves, peacefully, lawfully, and in a manner consistent with:

“Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. Just keep being friendly to that person. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies. (from “Loving Your Enemies”)” 
― Martin Luther King Jr.A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

We already have an advantage over the small group of RIGHTEOUS people who followed, supported and helped MLK’s dream.  Our group is a MUCH larger percentage of America than the Black population was in the 50’s and 60’s. The Tea Party is how many people?  10, 20, 30 % ?  Once explained to other OPEN individuals, the Spirit of our Declaration of Independence and Constitutional Principles of our Founding Fathers, at least 50 % will agree. Especially AFTER they understand physically that the current Government MUST be lieing to them.

We will forgive them, and help them, and they will give US their trust and license and strength to do the things G-d intended for us to do.


Sincerely, texas

34 thoughts on “Peacefulness, Martin Luther King, Jr.

  1. Recently a friend of mine recommended The Screwtape Letters. The themes seem to fit here.

    “Whatever he says, let his inner resolution be not to bear whatever comes to him, but to bear it ‘for a reasonable period’–and let the reasonable period be shorter than the trial is likely to last. It need not be much shorter; in attacks on patience, chastity, and fortitude, the fun is to make the man yield just when (had he but known it) relief was almost in sight.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

  2. Charity/love never fails. 1 Cor 13:8. Everything else fails. Charity does not. MLK understood this. I claim to understand it, but have yet to actually let go of my political anger and focus on charity, the pure love of Christ as a resolution to all this. It’s hard to love someone who is attempting to take away your liberty, but MLK is right: Love has in it, the redemptive power. I think this is the answer. I think MLK understood this and, as we might remember from Restoring Honor, Dr. E King told us her uncle wouldn’t let anyone march unless they signed the peace agreement. They were willing to be beaten, persecuted, hauled to jail and defamed in order to peacefully stand for the cause of love and the divine principle of judging a person by the content of their character. Are we?

  3. “How Ironic, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican.”

    It might indeed be ironic, if it were true, but that’s probably false:

    And the fact is, there are a lot of folks in the South in the 1950s who belonged to one party who then switched after the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, etc. That’s why the South was predominantly Democratic before 1964, overwhelmingly Republican after 1968.

      “During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
      Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

      In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited.”

    By: frice
    It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.” Read more at:

    • “the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.”

      Truly hilarious, of course, considering what has been the most popular topic on this blog in recent days. And as noted previously, the South was predominantly Democratic before 1964, overwhelmingly Republican after 1968.

      I do get a kick out of the conservative jokers who now pretend that they’re fans of King, whom today most folks at the RNL would call a communist or socialist.

      • And hence, proceeds the “name calling” (CONSERVATIVE JOKER Who pretend they are fans of King) and the slander of me personally by placing me in a GROUP. Thank you for employing the tactics of the Progressive … Name calling and Political Correctness which grew out of the ideas of “Critical Theory” of Cultural Marxism. It is taught, indoctrinated, and employed by Destroyers of Liberty and Freedom.

        Here is another example of James use of this tactic in another thread. Jame’s usual tactic to attempt to get all FACTUAL & SERIOUS discussion OFF TRACK.

      • “slander of me personally by placing me in a GROUP”

        You can’t have it both ways, Tex. If you’re not one of those jokers, then you’re not in that group. And if you’re part of that group, I haven’t slandered you.

        By the way, speaking of getting “off track,” I notice you skipped over the first two sentences of my response.

      • James: “considering what has been the most popular topic on this blog in recent days.”

        The current secessionist movement advocated on RNL more closely resembles the American Revolution to break free of an unjust rule, rather than the Southern Democrat secessionist movement, where defending slavery was a prime motive.

        James: “the South was predominantly Democratic before 1964, overwhelmingly Republican after 1968.”

        The South did not turn Republican overnight. The need for a second party had been known at least since the 1930s; it just took 30+ years for the dream to come to fruition. Among the prime motivations were corrupt elections, corrupt policy, and cronyism in the Democrat party. One reason Republicans did not rise to power sooner in the South was Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren, and Warren’s decision on Brown v. BOE.

        In the 1960s, it became abundantly clear that Southern Democrats’ brutal treatment of peaceful protestors could not persist. The South turned to Republicans who emphasized justice, law and order, and cracked down on violent riots fomented by radicals, the same radicals who found a home in the Democratic party.

        Unfortunately, there is no clear line between the fruits of King’s demonstrations and Progressivism. One result of the Civil Rights Movement has been an overreach of the federal government that we now know to be a double-edged sword.

        • “In the 1960s, it became abundantly clear that Southern Democrats’ brutal treatment of peaceful protestors could not persist. The South turned to Republicans who emphasized justice, law and order, and cracked down on violent riots fomented by radicals, the same radicals who found a home in the Democratic party.”

          Justin, that’s partly correct. It’s also correct, however, that many of those same Southern Democrats changed their party affiliation in reaction to civil rights legislation signed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. And surely you’re not claiming that King–much of whose activism was on behalf of labor unions–would be a Republican today? Keep in mind that Jesse Helms, John McCain and Ronald Reagan were significant opponents of the MLK holiday.

          • James: “many of those same Southern Democrats changed their party affiliation in reaction to civil rights legislation signed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson.”

            I won’t argue with that. Speaking of the South, Republicans, Democrats, we are not talking about monoliths. We are talking about a troubled time in our history with lasting ramifications.

            I am more concerned with ends and means. IMO, demonstrations such as King’s spoke for themselves. They exposed injustice in society, that tied into race. They put the morality mirror right up to the South’s face. Might that have been enough to encourage Southerners to change their ways? We will never know, because the federal government imposed mandates such as forced busing, thus over-reaching and fostering resentment. It was not enough to say that blacks can go wherever whites can go, and have the same legal rights. They decided that children should be taken out of their neighborhood schools and thrust into an unfamiliar environment. Not a lot of thought went into that decision. It was at the whim of a single justice.

            Meanwhile, racism persisted in policies, such as where highways were built right through the heart of thriving black neighborhoods, including MLK’s childhood neighborhood in Atlanta. In many respects, the post-Civil Rights era has been harsh on black people, and as usual self-serving policy-makers find ways to turn good intentions into bad results.

            I have to ask, despite the good intentions surrounding the civil rights movement, how much did blacks and society as a whole actually benefit from the federal government’s response, bearing in mind the extent to which social injustice is used as a bludgeon to justify all kinds of government intrusion which restricts freedom, creates dependence, undermines the economy, and has often proven costly, restrictive, and wrong-headed.

            What is the proper role of government in such a situation? That is a tough question. I am not claiming to have all the answers. I am saying that we need to be wary of a government that endeavors to cure all of society’s ills. In the words of Barry Goldwater, “You can’t legislate morality.”

            In regards to Reagan’s stance on the MLK celebration, I read that his primary objection was cost. Considering the rising deficit during his administration, cost seems to me to be a valid objection.

            • “Meanwhile, racism persisted in policies, such as where highways were built right through the heart of thriving black neighborhoods, including MLK’s childhood neighborhood in Atlanta. In many respects, the post-Civil Rights era has been harsh on black people, and as usual self-serving policy-makers find ways to turn good intentions into bad results.”

              Justin gets mad props for this statement. It’s right on point. That’s the biggest difference in slavery that was in America and slavery in other nations. The way we continued it through Jim Crows laws and the treatment of blacks afterwards. Good job Justin. You’ve done good research.

              “and as usual self-serving policy-makers find ways to turn good intentions into bad results.”

              This sentence is the most important since it affects everyone. I hear a lot here, and in the other media outlets, about how blacks are on the system and how they take advantage of this program and that program. But the above sentence is the problem, not the blacks taking advantage of anything. Sure, morality and doing the right thing is a huge factor, but how can anyone create a social program and not expect people to take advantage of it? Yeah, yeah, I know all the angels out there that would never take a dime of “government money”, any most of that is bullshit, but who created these programs anyway? Not the ones participating. It’s the ones that wanted to “right a wrong”, the one that wanted slavery/dependency to continue. The ones that wanted to continue to control a certain group of people. Over the years, all races and both major political parties have participated in creating and extending these programs.

              Blacks weren’t always out there committing crimes. Black males didn’t always have a 30% probability rate of incarceration in our lifetimes. Jails in prisons weren’t always 45% black males as they are now. But once opportunity was taken away or restricted, and replaced by an entitlement program, these rates started to skyrocket. Once I-95 was routed directly through thriving Liberty City and Overtown, in Miami, look at what those places have become. Nothing but crime infested drug havens. Sad but true.

              These are my people, I’ll criticize them when they’re wrong, just as much as I’ll praise them when they’re right, but the bottom line is this:

              White Americans did blacks nor themselves any favors enacting these entitlement program. Welfare is the worst destroyer of work ethic. It’s as much a poison in the black community as it is in the Wall Street community. If America wants to get right, these programs better be scaled back, or completely eliminated.

              • Thank you Wills !
                You make the point that govt. always proves. Govt Always takes advantage of those they are “helping” regardless of which group.
                Divide and conquer. Whether its deliveringthe mail, Farm subsidies,Medicaid,snap, welfare, or healthcare. Govt. TAKES power, shrugs its shoulder, and says, well we just didn’t do enough. Cede more of your choices to us and we will take more of your freedoms.
                Only now, govt. is purposelyLIEING to us while they act tyrannically.

                • Booker T Washington got way more help to educate blacks from prominent white citizens than he ever did from the government. Teddy Roosevelt made all sorts of promises but it was the wealthiest white Americans that help fund schools and universities for blacks with their time and efforts and mostly with their money. Of course, after seeing what private citizen were doing to help, the government wanted to get in the game. But it was too late. Blacks were mostly republican then, but felt when Roosevelt turned his back on Washington and his role in the Brownsville affair, blacks started to move to the democratic party.

                  Blacks and whites were already integrating in business ventures and really didn’t need government intervention. Many blacks believe that just set us back further since forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do rarely goes over easy ,or well. That’s the only government can do anything is by force so…………

                  Anyways, MLK was a great man. Was he a republican? I’ve never run across anything credible that said that he was or wasn’t. I know his father was. I think I read somewhere that he said he voted democrat. I know he criticized both parties though on civil rights. He said this on Stevenson vs Eisenhower:

                  “I am not taking any public position in this election. In private opinion I find something to be desired from both parties. The Negro has been betrayed by both the Democratic and Republican Party. The Democrats have betrayed us by capitulating to the whims and caprices of the southern dixiecrats. The Republicans have betrayed us by capitulating to the blatent hypocrisy of conservative right wing northerners. This coalition of southern dixiecrats and right wing northern Republicans defeats every move toward liberal legislation in Congress. So we confront the problem of choosing the lesser of two evils. At this point I might say however, that I feel that the Negro must remain an independent voter, not becoming unduly tied to either party. He should seek to vote for the party which is more concerned with the welfare of all the people.”

                  His father endorsed Eisenhower for President. Also, he was for the rights of ALL people not just blacks.

                • Tex – “You make the point that govt. always proves. Govt Always takes advantage of those they are “helping” regardless of which group.”

                  I agree. There is no such thing as free sh*t. When the government shows up and says, “We’re here to help you.”, there will be a price to pay, something expected in return.

              • Thanks William. I had some unique opportunities in my graduate program, very eye-opening for someone from Wyoming. I arrived at different conclusions than most of my colleagues and mentors, but the experience was still worthwhile. What I learned, there are many kinds of racism, but possibly the most destructive form of racism is that which gets the least notice and which is never spoken, that which is found in civic planning. I emphasize this, because civic planning can be used to target any community, and can have unintended effects on anyone, not just black people. Civic developments can be helpful, but we need to keep an eye on the city planners who oftentimes get their lofty ideas from Washington but who are not really connected to local interests, especially small businesses.

                Interesting aside, W.E.B. DuBois (who for those who don’t know started up the NAACP and initially led their legal struggle) broke from the NAACP on the issue of separate-but-equal. He believed that under separate-but-equal, blacks would have better leverage in terms of civic funding, say, for schools. Schools and churches, after all, was where blacks could restore their spirits, and organize efforts to make claims for equal rights, and so on. Abolishment of separate-but-equal, on the other hand, would in some ways forfeit the legal claim to equal protection. Incidentally, prior to the 1954 Brown decision, thriving black neighborhoods could be found throughout the South. Businesses, schools, churches, dance halls, you name it. It is a sad coincidence that the 1954 Brown decision coincided with the federal expressway program. In city after city, these highways were built right through healthy districts. By that I mean, I truly do believe the highway planners intentionally destroyed these neighborhoods, in city after city. Afterwards, many professional blacks such as those who practiced law and medicine ended up moving to white suburbs, leaving the others behind, separating the community from its entrepreneurs, leaders, and role models. Just to be clear, I am not endorsing separation, but I am suggesting that this historical period inflicted terrible damage to black communities, has not produced the desired harmony. As we celebrate the courageous efforts of King and other lesser known activists, we still tend to overlook the more troubling aspects of that period of history.

                I suppose some would assume this puts me in the affirmative action camp. It does not.

                • Absolutely. We agree on all of that and I saw the same things. Many blacks wanted separate but equal because eventually integration would have happened during the normal flow if interaction not forced. White colleges were starting to recruit black athletes which would produce black coaches and teachers at what was predominately white universities. The flow would have been more of a seamless transition.

                  The NAACP were more on a track to compromise with Booker T Washington and that wasn’t want Du Bois was about. He didn’t mind separate as long as lyching stopped, as well as discrimination and blacks had voting rights.

                  Affirmative action camp? I don’t see that. I’m never in favor of anyone being favored over another for any reason other than ability. Didn’t seem like you were either. Again, Affirmative Action was another government good intention gone wrong.

              • Do you know, Sweet Wills, that I learned all about Booker T. Washington from my (then) 5th grade son? He was very impressed with Mr. Washington, but was more impressed with Eli Whitney, I guess, since that’s who he chose to do his report on. Last year, he did one of his history reports on James Armistead. I had never heard of him. Be honest; have you?

                • Nope. Never heard of Armistead. But did you know that it’s very possible that Eli didn’t invent the cotton gin? That it was invented by slaves but since slaves weren’t allow to hold US Patents he got credit for it’s invention? Did young master Kells include that in his report?

                • No. Unfortunately, I didn’t jump in (the journalist that I am) and provide him with other resources.) Sadly, we weren’t able to help him a whole helluva lot with Armistead. It’s a shame really. His bio would make a great show.

          • McPherson: “And surely you’re not claiming that King–much of whose activism was on behalf of labor unions–would be a Republican today?”

            If Martin Luther King were alive today, maybe he would notice that unions are making unreasonable demands, driving companies out of business, putting people out of work, and depriving Americans of Twinkies.


        • Justin,
          Respectfully, “defending slavery was a prime motive” may have been true for the top 1/2 % of the population that owned slaves. The 99.5 percent of everyone else did NOT own slaves and never would. Sooooo, Why were the 99.5 % willing to fight, die or be crippled for life ?

          Never forget, “the victors write the history”.

  5. “Who knew?
    A billboard proclaiming that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican has stirred a religious and political hornets’ nest in Houston, where a church leader is trying to draw black voters into the Republican Party.
    The jumbo-sized roadside ad made its contentious claim for about a week — until a local black activist charged that the sign unjustly politicized King’s legacy and was hurting his community by telling a “blatant lie.”
    “Martin Luther King may have very well believed in some of the Christian principles of the Republican Party, but Dr. Martin Luther King was not a Republican or a Democrat,” said Quanell X, who heads the New Black Panther Party in Houston.
    “Dr. King was bigger than a political party — he was a humanitarian, and so to attach him exclusively to any party is to devalue his humanitarian global status,” he said. “We were insulted … by the billboard because it was a blatant lie.”
    King held great sway over black voters and carefully courted both Republicans and Democrats. He never officially endorsed a party or candidate.
    But the founder of, the black conservative group that sponsored the sign, told that the sign was designed to get blacks to rethink their political affiliation — about 95 percent of blacks voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential elections — and that this is just the beginning. He said a radio campaign that focuses on “the destructive nature of liberalism” is forthcoming.
    “We think it’s imperative that [the GOP] try and attract more people from the communities of color to vote their values — to vote conservative,” said Claver Kamau-Imani, who heads the Corinthian Christian Empowerment Church, a small house church in Houston.
    What’s more, he said, the sign is accurate.

    Read more:

  6. I got this site from my buddy who shared with me regarding this web page and at the moment this time I am browsing this website and reading
    very informative articles or reviews at this time.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s