It is reasonable to assume that surely his borther Senator Kennedy, the chairman of this committee and one of the cosponsors of this bill, knows that King was continually surrounded by Communists and proCommunists. King had an animosity towards the Kennedys which didn't end with Robert, for it ran all he way to the White House. One FBI memo contained "King's vilification of the late President"-John F. Kennedy-"and his wife." Is this the manner of citizen we want to honor with a national holiday? His activities to subvert the well being of America alone cry out "No"! As one top-secret memo on King pointed out: At present, there are 57 investigative-type technical surveillances in operation and three are awaiting installation. The size alone reflects the degree of concern. And every Senator should have that same concern about making a national hero out of such an alleged subversive. Hoover pointed out that: Mr. King has publicly stated that he will create massive civil disobediences in the Nation's Capital and in 10 to 15 major cities throughout the U.S. in the spring of 1968 if certains commitments are not forthcoming from Congress in the civil rights field. I might add that is a classic example of blackmail. On one hand he said (paraphrasing) "You Congress, either do what we demand or we are going to burn down 10 to 15 cities." In my opinion, that doesn't sound like a man of peace. That does not sound like a man of God. That does not sound like a man who is a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am quoting from Hoover again, "An aide of King has stated, 'Jail will be the safest place in Washington, D.C. this spring.'" King didn't practice civil disobedience, though he called it that; his forte was anarchy. As the FBI Director warned: Communists continue to influence the organization and the influence is increasing. Recently a member of the national committee of the Communist party, USA, was hired as aide to the president of the SCLC. Enemies, enemies everywhere and not a patriot to be found around Martin Luther King, Jr. The fact is he aided the Communist cause; he abetted it constantly, continuously. Since when does a Nation honor a man who honored its enemy? And I clearly put the Communists in the enemy camp. A former counterspy for the FBI, Karl Prussion, stated in an affidavit that: Martin Luther King has either been a member of, or wittingly has accepted support from, over 60 Communist fronts, individuals, and/or organizations, which give aid to or espouse communist causes. I have that list if you folks are interested. The Spotlight of April 18, 1977 reported that: Another undercover operative of the FBI, Mrs. Julia Brown, spent more than 9 years as a member of the Communist party in Cleveland. A black, Mrs. Brown called King "one of the worst enemies my people ever had." I am still quoting Mrs. Brown: Communist leaders also told us to promote Martin Luther King, to unite Negroes and whites behind him, and to turn him into some sort of national hero. We were to look to King as the leader in this struggle, the Communists said, because he was on our ['the Communists'] side. Said Mrs. Brown: I knew they were right, because while I was in the Communist party, I learned that Martin Luther King attended a Communist training school (Highlander Folk School, Tennessee). I learned that several of his aides and assistants were Communists and that they received funds from Communists and that he was taking directions from Communists. King was more than a Communist, pro-Communist or Communist dupe; he was an anarchist. King himself had publicly stated that he was beyond the reach of the law. That is a good definition of anarchy. Representative John Ashbrook, Republican, Ohio, stated on October 4, 1967, and put it in the Congressional Record, "I can say without equivocation that Martin Luther King does not want nor can he stand a public airing of his record." That is as true today as it was then. If the people knew the truth-I am speaking about black people, white people, polka dot people, I am talking about everybody, it is not a race issue here-if the people knew the truth, if the FBI tapes were released, I am confident that the Senate would overwhelmingly reject this bill. It would be political suicide not to. But because the truth is not out, because people have been fed a "false and misleading impression," which is Webster's definition of a lie, the whole situation is reversed and, for the moment, it would appear to be political suicide not to make King the hero he shouldn't be. The Bible says the truth will make you free-free from the error of doing the wrong thing when you don't have the truth. Would it not be wise to wait until all the truth comes out? It will be King talking on these tapes made from the FBI surveillance and it will be King that condemns or exonerates his behavior, his principles, yes, and his patriotism. It has been 52 years since Charles Lindbergh, a patriot of the first order, brought acclaim, glory and pride to America by being the first to fly solo across the Atlantic. We still don't have a national holiday for this patriot who always put America first. Is it so wrong to wait 40-some years before we consider making a national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.? If one is impatient, and I am sure there are those who are impatient, and understandably so, a constructive alternative would be to release this information-these tapes-immediately, especially since those who want a national holiday honoring King are the same people who want the truth locked up. Since his privacy is no longer a consideration, there must be other reasons to keep the truth in the closet. As long as that coverup exists, he is the wrong man for a national holiday. I looked into this and found these tapes could be released with a court order. Then there is the cost to the poor, overburdened, neglected American taxpayer. That puts everybody in this room, I think, in that category. According to a Library of Congress study of 1978, the cost to the tax payers for a national holiday is $176,502,583 of salaries for all Federal Government employees. Senator Kennedy pointed out that the premium for essential Government workers, in other words, holiday overtime, is $22 million. I have $15 million. But either way, it comes close to $200 million for a national holiday. I might point out at this time that Mr. Kennedy brought out the fact that holidays generate business. You know, with this logic, I guess the more holidays we have, the richer we are going to get. That reminds me of my wife who goes to the store and takes advantage of a sale. She says, "Well, if I buy this on sale, I can save this much money," and I say, "Yes, if you buy this, buy it again, you can save twice as much." But you see, nobody ever tells my banking account that logic. I think the argument that Senator Kennedy has is quite illogical because we cannot spend ourselves or make holidays into prosperity. It can't be done. Is it wise to put this additional burden on the overtaxed American taxpayer when the debt ceiling is about to be raised to $830 billion and our national debt is over $7 trillion, taking into consideration our contingent or off-record liabilities such as social security? As you can see, it is wise and prudent for many and varied reasons for this committee to reject S. 25, and Liberty Lobby urges that you do. The American people hope that such wisdom is also reflected by their Senate. Thank you, again, for this opportunity to appear today and present our views. Representative GARCIA. Mr. Rittenhouse, I would just like to say before I close this hearing that the advantage of a democracy is that all sides are heard. But I must tell you that hate and fear have long run this country and I think it is a shame that you come up and tell us what you are against, but never once said what you were for. Mr. RITTENHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to your remarks. I would like at this particular moment to call these hearings to a close. Thank you all very much. [Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1979 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:35 a.m. in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Strom Thurmond presiding. Also present: Eric Hultman, minority counsel; Peter Parham, majority counsel. Senator THURMOND. The committee will come to order. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THURMOND This morning the committee continues its hearings on S. 25, a proposal to establish a legal, public holday on the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. In my previous statement before the committee on March 27, 1979, I pointed out that there are many people in this country who admire and revere Martin Luther King, Jr., for his accomplishments in the civil and human rights areas, but there must be other objective tests applied in order for the American public to accept the establishment of a new legal Federal holiday. First, we should consider whether any new legal holidays ought not be left to the States. Many States and communities now observe not only Dr. King's birthday as an optional holiday, but observe other holidays as well. Public holidays should be the primary responsibility of the States. The reason for the observance of a legal, public holiday should also be carefully considered. Of the nine public, legal holidays now observed, only two are in honor of individuals. One is Christopher Columbus, who discovered America; and the other is George Washington, the first President of the United States, whom most historians consider as the "Father of our Country." Both Christopher Columbus and George Washington are figures who have established themselves not only in the history books of America, but of world history as well. Since those two holidays have been established, no other American person-not Abraham Lincoln, not Thomas Jefferson, not Dwight Eisenhower, not John Kennedy-has been honored with a legal, public holiday. The basis for such an honor is substantial, indeed. Another test that should be applied is the place in history a person has established and his overall contribution to our world judged ob jectively through the passage of time. One must be able to withstand the test of time over the generations in order to be considered for the high honor afforded by the designation of a legal, public holiday. Finally, the cost of a new Federal holiday must be considered. In a time when everyone is concerned about excess Government spending and inflation, the thought of creating another legal holiday, which would cost the American taxpayers nearly $200 million, is just not reasonable. Today we will hear from several more witnesses on S. 25, the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday bill. Senator BAYH. Would the Senator permit me to make a brief opening statement? Senator THURMOND. Senator Bayh from Indiana has a statement. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BAYH Senator BAYH. I just wanted to make one or two words of observation. I know that all of our witnesses here feel very strongly about this issue this morning, and certainly, our distinguished colleague from South Carolina does. But it seems to me that those of us who are actively pursuing this goal of a Martin Luther King holiday are thinking in entirely different terms than those that have been concentrated on by those who are opposed. It seems to me that one of the real crises we have right now is a disenchantment in the minds of many, many citizens. None of us are really certain what caused that disenchantment, and none of us are absolutely certain how to remove it, or indeed to lessen it. We do have a pretty good idea of some ingredients that might help. None of us suggest that the Martin Luther King holiday bill is going to be a panacea for the Nation's ills; or is going to cause the disenchantment to disappear in the minds of citizens. But indeed, it seems to me this is an important step that can make a contribution, particularly in the minds of our minority citizens. We have many ways of recognizing full citizenship. It seems to me the time has come to add to that number of ways the fact that we believe a black citizen has made a significant enough contribution to society to be recognized as a national holiday figure. We are desperately searching for role models for our minority youth right now to show them that there is a way that they can climb outclaw out-work out-sweat out of circumstances under which they were born, over which they have no control. It just seems to me as one who has been talking to my constituents of all racial backgrounds; talking to young people about putting aside their frustrations and working within the system, "Hang in there and you can get to the top," that this is a good example of the system's ability to recognize one of our citizens who just looks a little bit different than anybody else, but serves as a role model to those who are now making important decisions about the pathway they are going to follow through their lives. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from South Carolina for letting his colleague from Indiana get this off his chest. Senator THURMOND. Our first witness today is Alan Stang. If you would come around, Mr. Stang. Mr. Stang, we are glad to have you with us. I believe you are a professional journalist and writer. Go ahead and give us your background and proceed with your statement, please. |