Enjoy...
Posted on 04/24/2012 8:58:57 AM PDT by Milagros
Martin Luther King's assassin shot him dead to collect £62,000 bounty from Ku Klux Klan, new book claims By Daniel Bates PUBLISHED: 11:21 EST, 11 April 2012 | UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 12 April 2012 Martin Luther King was shot dead because a £62,000 bounty had been placed on his head by the Ku Klux Klan, according to a new book. Assassin James Earl Ray was in jail when he is said to have heard on the prison grapevine that the racist group would pay out to anyone who ended the life of the black U.S. civil rights leader. The book’s authors say the KKK in the 1960s functioned like an Al Qaeda-style organisation raising money to fight a ‘holy war’ against black people.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Alternate title:
When the KKK was like the New Black Panthers
Alternate title: The Democrats killed MLK.
Yeppers, good way to make a hero out of James Earl Ray.
Never said James earl was a hero. I said MLK was a fraud now if you wanna do research on it and debate it OK, but if you are just going to scream with kneejerk racism without knowing the facts then just STFU.
The KKK formed by the DemoKKKrats who started 2nd Amendment unconstitutional infringement so blacks couldn’t defend themselves which BTW they’ve also done to George Zimmerman despite massive death threats against him and depite the fact that the evidence points to him acting in self defense against Trayvon Martin. BTW isn’t it curious that our POTUS seems to have shown more support for 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed than George Zimmerman? Him and Holder demanding KSM get a fair trial under the constitution yet nothing like that was said for him.
More journalistic crapola.
Hmmmmm, KKK...didn’t we have a fat, crooked, sleazy democrat senator (is there any other type?) that was a Grand Klegal or whatever in that racist group?
Was not this fat, croooked sleazy democrat senator honored and revered by liberals?
And - thankfully, is not this fat, crooked sleazy demoncrat senator now at room temp (and sharing a hot cell with dead Ted)?
And which party is the party of racists?
“MLK was a communist, womanizing fraud.”
Michael King Jr even more so.
KKK vs New Black Panthers
Both wear hoods
Both promote racial hatread
Both issue bounties on people they don’t like.
Do Both have union backing?
We wouldn’t want any accurate details from a journalist would we?
$100,000 was only about 42,000 Pounds in 1968 because the exchange rate was 2.4:1
You think that a story like this could at least use the correct historical perspective...:^)
Last time I said that I got pummeled.
Stand your ground.
Yup sick of political correctness. The truth will always survive.
And, in my opinion, one of the biggest frauds ever pulled over on the American people.
And the worst part of King’s assassination was that, RacePimp and extortionist extraordinarie, Jesse Jackson, has been able to make a lucrative and highly destructive career out of the simple fact that he happned to be standing on the balcony with MLK, that evening.
You can scream like a f*gget all you want on flimsy evidence about MLK. By what from what you state, you make JER a hero so you STFU.
Wow you sound like a libtard. The facts were presented rebut them or scream racism. Oh wait you already did play the race card. Sorry bro its maxed out with Obama the black panthers and all.
The King family doesn’t believe JER killed MLK Jr., so what’s up with this story?
As far as what he believed, it seems King was an evangelical Christian which would at least partly contradict your assertion.
Although we are all frauds and sinners, each one of us.
After a cursory glance at King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” I can’t find anything which contradicts conservative Christian principles—in fact, he says things that show he agreed with the most important ones.
For example:
“An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”
You bring in known debunked "facts" and you call me a liptard? OTFLOL!!! Keep on flying you Rebel flag. I'm burning another one, along with your pals rainbow flag.
“As far as what he believed, it seems King was an evangelical Christian “
You need to do better research. King was a heretic who denied the authority of the Scripture, the bodily resurrection of Christ and IIRC the virgin birth.
Well debunk them.
You’re going to have to back that up or I call bull.
Since you give me a source that only a lazy person would give, I give you the same. By all accounts, it is a better source than what you gave.
Read, "FBI surveillance and wiretapping," and, "'Allegations' of adultery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
“You’re going to have to back that up or I call bull.”
I could, but you might learn more if you went and looked it up for yourself.
MARKUSPRIME, aka, defender of the KKK could learn something from you.
No, you are making the claim without any supporting evidence. I say you are full of shite, friend.
The message ("content of character") is valid regardless of the behavior of the messenger.
OK,
1) wikipedia is not a legitimate source on which to base an argument. Great for gathering info and direction, unreliable as to fact.
2) I don’t know if I can believe anything that came out of the Hoover FBI as it seems that it was as corrupt as the day was long. I’m sure lots of the things they alleged were true - it’s just telling them from the things that are false that’s hard.
3) I don’t engage in the sort of guilt by association that you seem to be trying to perpetrate.
4) I don’t even know WHERE you came up with the baptist preacher denying the virgin birth and the authority of scripture. Can’t imagine he’d of held his pastor position very long with that viewpoint.
So true, especially in comparison with the lifestyle and political choices of the likes of Rev Jack-*ss*-on, and others who "followed" MLK. Unfortunately, socialism became more important to them rather than equality. I don't get it; such a Godly message and then, after MLK's death, a bunch of idiots took over and steered so many into another kind of slavery.
“4) I don’t even know WHERE you came up with the baptist preacher denying the virgin birth and the authority of scripture.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/15/MNGHJNIR631.DTL
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/mlk_jr-exposed.htm
http://www.examiner.com/article/the-pagan-faith-of-martin-luther-king-jr
PS: And right into the political party that enslaved them in the first place!
What makes you think you can get away with doing such a sloppy research job?
“What makes you think you can get away with doing such a sloppy research job?”
You don’t like the facts? So be it.
Go back to worshiping your god.
I’ll tell you what.
If King really was a conservative Christian, I would expect a lot of pressure from the left to believe he was the opposite, to the extent that many would have fallen for the very claims you’ve made here.
Remember, the left wants a race war.
I hope for the opposite of what the left wants.
Before he was assassinated, MLK rejected three of the most fundamental tenets of Marxism:
1) atheism
2) collectivism
3) denial of transcendent moral law
This lines him right up with conservatism.
Before he was assassinated, MLK rejected three of the most fundamental tenets of Marxism:
1) atheism
2) collectivism
3) denial of transcendent moral law
This lines him right up with conservatism.
I suggest you read King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.
This is written by MLK and is a good place to start if you would like to understand his political and social ideas, as they were influenced by his Christian faith.
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/my_pilgrimage_to_nonviolence1
“The lessons which I was taught in Sunday School were quite in the fundamentalist line. None of my teachers ever doubted the infallibility of the Scriptures. Most of them were unlettered and had never heard of Biblical criticism. Naturally I accepted the teachings as they were being given to me. I never felt any need to doubt them, at least at that time I didn’t. I guess I accepted Biblical studies uncritically until I was about twelve years old.7 But this uncritical attitude could not last long, for it was contrary to the very nature of my being. I had always been the questioning and precocious type. At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly. At the age of fifteen I entered college and more and more could I see a gap between what I had learned in Sunday School and what I was learning in college. This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape...
My days in college were very exciting ones. As stated above, my college training, especially the first two years, brought many doubts into my mind. It was at this period that the shackles of fundamentalism were removed from my body. This is why, when I came to Crozer, I could accept the liberal interpretation with relative ease...
At the age of 19 I finished college and was ready to enter the seminary. On coming to the seminary I found it quite easy to fall in line with the liberal tradition there found, mainly because I had been prepared for it before coming.”
“An Autobiography of Religious Development”
http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_501122_00
“A King quote from this same paper about the Sonship of Jesus—
The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of development. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?
We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.
...As Hedley laconically states, “the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.”
Next, King on the virgin birth—
First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “young woman.” How then did this doctrine arise?
A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin’s First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.
A more adequate explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the early christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.
And finally, King on the resurrection—
The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?
The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form. “
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm
Wikipedia the leftist encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Really? LOL.
And yet he met with communists.
Calling me KKK because I dont like the lie that has been pushed on the USA about the communist womanizer fraud doesnt make me part of the KKK or racist. If people cant question then this nation is lost. Race Card, you are pathetic.
Meeting with communists, in and of itself, is consistent with what a Christian would do.
Remember, he rejected the groundwork of Marxism.
Keep on believing that BS. He met with them because the soviets were trying to sow civil discord in the US at that time during the height of the cold war and he was part of it. Which is the reason the FBI was watching him closely. Speaking truth to power will never fail. Call me racist or whatever the liberal PC media has brainwashed people into thinking a certain way but thats the truth. Do your research and try not to be biased. Its out there. He was a fraud I have no doubt.
It does seem that when he was twenty, King wrote essays as though he held a materialist view of Christ.
Bottom line is, if he didn’t believe in the Resurrection he wasn’t Christian. But religious beliefs often change after age twenty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.