Monday, January 21, 2008

Martin Luther King “HAD” A Dream

January 21, 2008

As happens every year at this time, on Martin Luther King Day, luminaries flock to Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia to embrace the legacy of possibly the single most important person in America’s struggle for Equal Rights.

It was at the pulpit of this Church that Reverend Martin Luther King gave his first sermon, in the fall of 1947, shortly before being ordained and serving as co-Pastor with his father. Although his involvement as a Civil Rights leader would be launched from another Church, the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, people flock to this Church every Martin Luther King day to pay homage.

Today would be no different as thousands descended upon the Church today for speeches and services honoring Reverend King.

Attending the event, former President Bill Clinton said,

"He freed us all to fight the civil rights battle, to fight the poverty battle, to fight all these battles and do it together. He made a place at the table for all of us."

Georgia’s Lt. Gov., Casey Cagle said,
"He understood that life is not about self. Life is about service … and service to others."
Atlanta’s Mayor, Shirley Franklin said,
"Martin aimed high, acted with faith, dreamed miracles that inspired a nation. Can we act on King's legacy without dreaming? I think not. King's legacy gives light to our hopes, permission to our aspirations and relevance to our dreams."

Undoubtedly she is referencing what many see as one of the most eloquent speeches ever given by an American, Martin Luther King's “I Have A Dream” speech, given from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963.

In the speech, King spoke of a Dream of,
“one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’"

He dreamed of
“one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”

Most importantly he dreamed
“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,”
“one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

That was Reverend King’s dream up until he was murdered in 1968. That was the dream he fought for, marched for and yes, died for, to bring Whites and Blacks together and stop looking at our differences. To stop the injustices to Blacks and even to Whites that befriended them.

A lofty and admirable dream, but one that seems today to be unnattainable, even though it shouldn’t be. Even at School Lunch Periods, we see students separating themselves by race. In spite of over 4 decades of Affirmative Action, we still hear that Blacks Still Lag Behind Whites in many ways.

What happened? Where did the dream go as others picked up the gauntlet laid down by Reverend King?

Bob Parks, Black Columnist says in an article today,
“liberals have distorted thus his (Martin Luther King) message, in order to justify their ownership of his legacy.”

In this particular column, Parks mentions how Reverend King’s Dream has now come to include Gay Marriage, something King never spoke of. He quotes King’s daughter, Elder Bernice King,
"I know in my sanctified soul that he did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage."

He goes on to say that the last time Reverend King registered under any party umbrella, it was a “Republican,” as did his parents. He then speculates,
“if Dr. King were alive today, he'd be vilified as an Uncle Tom for not supporting, among other things, Affirmative Action.”

This echoes the words of Comedian Bill Cosby spoken before the NAACP in May 2004.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells us today concerning Martin Luther King’s birthday,
“There is irony in that Dr. King's observed birthday today comes the day before the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which forcibly legalized abortion in the United States. The legalization of abortion was the culmination of a dream of Planned Parenthood founder and icon Margaret Sanger. In 1939 Ms. Sanger started the "Negro Project." The aim of the program was to restrict, many believe exterminate, the African-American population, under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning."

Blacks advancing themselves, becoming highly educated and gaining prominent positions within our government, if conservative, are castigated as “Toms,” “House Negroes” and such, as was done to Condaleeza Rice and Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. Janice Rogers Brown, daughter of an Alabama Sharecropper, met with the same opposition when President Bush nominated her for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003.

Alan Keyes, Walter Williams, Ward Connerly, J.C. Watts and several others not mentioned, all gained an education and moved up the societal ladder, yet faced much opposition from other Blacks and White Liberals. Shouldn’t they be applauded for grasping Martin Luther King’s Dream and not only advancing in a predominant White Society, but for adopting the vision of Reverend King and not sitting around waiting?

In another column written today, by a similar title as this one (unintentional on my part), Bob Parks tells us,
“liberals have been allowed to segregate Blacks into the housing project mindset. We as a people are expected to bow down and kiss the feet of a liberal government massah who feeds us with degradating notions like food stamps and provides our “expected” illegitimate children with a substandard education that would never be tolerated in white communities.”

In 1963, Martin Luther King dreamt of an America the way it was intended. In 2008, that Dream appears to have become more of a nightmare for the very ones he dreamt it for. The Dream isn’t dead, just corrupted by some of the same ones who fought that Dream back then.

We must come together and reclaim that Dream if we are to survive as a nation and stop the Socialist Liberals who would enslave us all.



Flag Gazer said...

Exceptional piece, Lew.

You captured the essence of King and the essence of the betrayal of King. It always amazes me how many people hold him up as a saint while living an speaking against his message.

Thank you.

LewWaters said...

His message has been corrupted by unscrupulous people.

King might have been human and not perfect, but how can we argue with what he stood for?

Rightwingwacko said...

It is always encouraging to see Lew recognize and salute an opponent of the Vietnam War.

LewWaters said...

LOL, Wacko, I deliberately left that out to see which moonbat would be the first to bring it up. You win the prize of moonbat of the day ;-)

Yes, he was opposed to the war, so what? As a Minister his job was tending to his Church members.

It is also very possible that he too fell for the myth of Blacks were sent to the front lines in disproportionate numbers, like cattle to slaughter. It wasn't true, but people still believe that canard.

Whatever his reason, they were his and changed nothing about his dream for Whites and Blacks to sit down next to each other, did it?

When do you liberals let them out of the ghettoes ya'll keep them in?

Rightwingwacko said...

Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War was far more complex than you imply. A good starting point to understanding is
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break SilenceBy Rev. Martin Luther King 4 April 1967. Speech delivered at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City.

Too long to reproduce even on this blog, but can be easily found online. Brilliant oratory

LewWaters said...

Sorry, Wacko, no moonbat of the day today.

I did not imply why he was opposed, but offered a guess asto why, big difference.

What you can't seem to fathom is that even though he opposed that war, on principle, not out of cowardice like so many others, is that I can respect his stand while disagreing with him.

The key is that it was his stand on his principle, for whatever reason he had.

Nor does it detract from what else he did.

Rightwingwacko said...

'I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray to God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.

I am convinced that it is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement in the war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military-industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation. It has put us against the self-determination of a vast majority of the Vietnamese people, and put us in the position of protecting a corrupt regime that is stacked against the poor.

It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. This day we are spending five hundred thousand dollars to kill every Vietcong soldier. Every time we kill one we spend about five hundred thousand dollars while we spend only fifty-three dollars a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.

Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are ten thousand miles away from home fighting for the so-called freedom of the Vietnamese people when we have not even put our own house in order. And we force young black men and young white men to fight and kill in brutal solidarity. Yet when they come back home that can’t hardly live on the same block together.

The judgment of God is upon us today. And we could go right down the line and see that something must be done—and something must be done quickly. We have alienated ourselves from other nations so we end up morally and politically isolated in the world. There is not a single major ally of the United States of America that would dare send a troop to Vietnam, and so the only friends that we have now are a few client-nations like Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and a few others.

This is where we are. "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind," and the best way to start is to put an end to war in Vietnam, because if it continues, we will inevitably come to the point of confronting China which could lead the whole world to nuclear annihilation.

It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine.'

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution

LewWaters said...

Okay, wacko, you've convinced me. He really did oppose the Viet Nam War, just like I said.

So what?

What convinced him? On what basis did he claim we tore up the Geneva Accords? When did he visit Viet Nam to receive a first-hand look?

Is there were I am supposed to claim he was a communist? Or, do you just enjoy beating a dead horse since we both agree that he opposed the war?

Do you realize that over the years, some who opposed it now believe they were wrong back then?

I've told you before, if you want to know what really was happening, seek out some Vietnamese, especially those who came here as "boat people," and get their view of how merciful the North Vietnamese were and ho murderous the Americans were.

Ask them, not a 40 year old speech.

LewWaters said...

Ahem, wacko: "Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem."

Earlier I had said, "It is also very possible that he too fell for the myth of Blacks were sent to the front lines in disproportionate numbers, like cattle to slaughter. It wasn't true, but people still believe that canard."

Also interesting, "All the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy -- and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us -- not their fellow Vietnamese --the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go -- primarily women and children and the aged.
They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them -- mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children, degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers."

Sound familiar?

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence..."

Since it is now known that the KGB infilitrated and fed the anti-war movement propaganda, do you think is possible that even King was misled?

Rightwingwacko said...

MLK said:

"There are those seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. ... I say those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person who has taken a stand against the best in our tradition."

LewWaters said...

Interesting that a loving and tolerant liberal should come to a conservative blog to trash Martin Luther King.

I thought it was we conservatives who are accused of being bigoted?

u∃∃l!∃ said...

The Democratic party, of the 60's played the major role in the civil rights legislation, which lead to equal rights for Negroes in the South.
It does bother me that the Republican party now wants to hijack this accomplishment as their own, based on a few trivial correlations.
But it was the Democratic party of the North, not that of the South, which lead this effort.
If looking at the votes splits on the bill of 1964 (needed because previous bills were so shallow), ZERO southern republicans voted in favor of it, and very few Southern Democrats voted in favor of it.
Moving North, both Parties were mostly in favor, but Democrats still slightly out numbered Republicans.

As far as the hijacking of the Civil Rights movement by the Homosexuals, we are mostly in agreement.

LewWaters said...

Coboble, you couldn't be more wrong on Democrats playing the major role in Civil Rights legislation. Everrett Dirkson, a Republican, was one of he key players pushing Civil Rights through for Johnson to sign.

Due to opposition from Southern Democrats, the Democrat party was split on it while the Republicans were far less splintered. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. The Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

It was Republican Dwight Eisenhower who started submitting Civil Rights Bills in the mid-1950's and he was who sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce school desegregation.

Kennedy didn't introduce any Civil Rights actions until 1963, well after he was in office and then out of pressure and outrage from the public.

In the House vote for the bill, with Democrats in the majority, 152 voted for it and 96 against. The minority Republicans voted 134 for 34 against.

In truth, it was a bi-partisan effort to correct a wrong that was filibustered by members of the Democrat party, Southern Democrats, who fought it tooth and nail.

Republicans are not trying to hijack it, but to correct the history of what happened and who fought it. What is going on today isn't what King dreamt of and is having a far worse effect on Blacks today than the left will admit. We desire Blacks and others to realize their potential, not sit around waiting on "Massah's" hand-outs.

Intersting how you emphasize that ZERO Southern Republicans voted for it when overall the party's break down was Democrats 63% for 37% again and Republicans were 80% for 20% against.

You neglected to say that there were only about 11 Southerners in Republican party at that time.

Some things you might not have heard before, "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
--Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961 who later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

"I'm not going to use the federal government's authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that's made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods."
--Jimmy Carter, 1976
President, 1977-81

"It has of late become the custom of the men of the South to speak with entire candor of the settled and deliberate policy of suppressing the negro vote. They have been forced to choose between a policy of manifest injustice toward the blacks and the horrors of negro rule. They chose to disfranchise the negroes. That was manifestly the lesser of two evils. . . . The Republican Party committed a great public crime when it gave the right of suffrage to the blacks. . . . So long as the Fifteenth Amendment stands, the menace of the rule of the blacks will impend, and the safeguards against it must be maintained."
--Editorial, "The Political Future of the South," New York Times, May 10, 1900

For the most part, the South has strived to put that era behind them and most accept each other today. However, a little known segement of the civil rights era was what Reverend King came to call the White Backlash.

1966, Illinois, he was struck in the head by a rock thrown by a white angry that they were marching in the neighborhood. Northern racism came to the fore and it was just as ugly.

Lonsdale said...

Coboble, don't be confused by Lew's nonsensical revisionist clap trap.

In conjunction with the civil rights movement, Johnson overcame southern resistance and got Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. Johnson signed it into law on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation," anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party.[20] In 1965, he achieved passage of a second civil rights bill, the Voting Rights Act, that outlawed discrimination in voting, thus allowing millions of southern blacks to vote for the first time.
In 1967, Johnson nominated civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to be the first African American Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. After the murder of civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo, Johnson went on television to announce the arrest of four Ku Klux Klan's men implicated in her death. He angrily denounced the Klan as a "hooded society of bigots", and warned them to "return to a decent society before it's too late." He turned the themes of Christian redemption to push for civil rights, thereby mobilizing support from churches North and South.

The South became and remained Republican. Nixon benefited from the Southern Strategy. The Republicans thereafter have not hesitated to play the race card.

LewWaters said...

Poor lonzie, still trying to act like you are intelligent?

hate totell you, son, but in psite of your liberal revisionism of he Civil Rights era, the truth is exceptionally documented, if you look. You all haven't yet succeeded in changing National Archives and such to suit your Socialist agenda.

Marquette Park, 1966

I also highly recommend you read the links in the article above, from Black columnists, if you can handle that.

Rightwingsnarkle said...

Nice to see modern-day rednecks like Lew claiming MLK's legacy as their own.

Lew et al are nothing if not brazen and shameless.

FWIW, the redneck segregationists who were Democratic office holders up to the passage of the 1964/65 civil rights and voting rights legislation have largely been transmuted into repub redneck segregationists.

And they're still at it.

iago said...

I read on Irom's blog that the old unreconstructed Confederate Lew was over here praising Martin Luther King. This I had to see for myself. Lo and behold it is true. You did become a little testy when Righwingwako merely quoted Mr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War so I am wondering about your genuineness, but I always do. What next? Will you be removing the Confederate flag from your truck?

LewWaters said...

chuckle, chuckle, snort snort, boys.

As if either of you knows anything other than what you were taught in public schools?

Snarkle, you really need to read more about the Dixiecrats, which were disbanded in 1948, son.

Yes, some did become Republcians, after they recanted their segregationist views.

One whoever, stayed, West Virginia's Democrat, Robert C, Byrd, former Grand Kleagle for the Ku Klux Klan, still sitting in the Senate.

Care to show me which Republican was once in the Klan?

iago, you are so pitiful I feel sorry for you. You don't have a clue what I drive or what may be on it.

Oh, learn the history of the Confederate Battle Flag, which had nothing to do with slavery.

I find it odd that you lefty's come here to bash King when I write of his dream that you all but destroyed.

Is there a reason you liberals don't want to see Blacks succeed and better their lot in life?

Funnier yet is that you lefty's can't even utter appreciation for King, as if you feel he is your lackey, which the left has made him to reinforce your own racist views today.

Really sad, son.

Rightwingsnarkle said...

Like I said, Lew is beyond shame.

A wingnut dragging out the old "Robert Byrd was in the Klan" story is as predictable as the sun rising in the east. Funny how you ignore everything that the man's said about that time in his life, and what he's done.

And here I thought wingnuts were big on the power of a forgiving jesus. I guess not always.

Funny, too, how ol' Lew opines that the only rednecks to ever become repubs were the ones who saw the error of their nigger-hating ways. The best response to this crock of shit comes from today's teens - "As if!"

As for "bashing King," that's best left to Lew and his fellow redneck bigots.

Sure, they can say that the Reverend Doctor looks fine to them in retrospect (now that he's safely dead and buried), but of course if he was alive now, or if they were active adults back in the day, they'd likely be among the loudest and most animated of his detractors, throwing terms like 'treason' and 'commie' and worse through the air - just as they do now, only at slightly different targets.

Yup, shameless doesn't even begin to describe ol' Lew.

LewWaters said...

Shameless would be someone who tries to hijack a tribute to Reverend King to bash those he hates.

Get help, snarkle, your hate is eating you up.

iago said...

"Shameless would be someone who tries to hijack a tribute to Reverend King to bash those he hates."

Review the posts. It appears you were the one to go off on a
tangent simply because someone noted the fact that King was an opponent of the Vietnam War.

Tribute? One that contained slams against liberals who you hate.

Time for you to engage in a little self-reflection, scary as ithat may be for you.

LewWaters said...

Tangent, iago? My acknowledging that he did oppose it is a "tangent?"

Must be the public school education.

I don't hate you liberals, I pity you. That's why I try to educate you and get you to open your eyes before you become enslaved under a Socialist regime.

Rightwingsnarkle said...

You're a real clueless piece of work, Lew.

But, just like a blind pig, you do manage to find an acorn every now and then, as in this statement:

"His (MLK's) message has been corrupted by unscrupulous people."

You must have been looking in a mirror when you said that, just as when you talk about hate eating one up.

That's a great example of a negative defense mechanism that shows moderately distorted thinking. The mechanism is called projection, and it's defined as "attributing one's own unacceptable feelings or impulses to another."

I won't even touch any other of your comments right now, though let me just say that they'd keep a seminar full of psychology grad students busy for a while.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll have some kind of snappy "I'm rubber you're glue" comeback, since you've shown zero talent for self-reflection.

I can't say that I hate or pity you, since I don't know you. But the views you lay out in your posts and comments are seriously fucked up.

LewWaters said...

Snarkle, your projection is just too obvious. Since you defined it, you showed it as well.

Whether you realize it or not, the liberal acts for minorities keeps the msecond class. You tell them they can't ever amount to anything, so they will just accept what you dole out.

Prominent Blacks have seen the corruption of the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons and how you liberals cater to their whims, all to "prove" you aren't prejudiced.

You only fool yourselves.

I'd be careful what you say about Blacks too. My guess is I may have more Black relatives than you do.

Quick Transportation LLC said...

Reference; Martin Luther Kings Dream!

“I have a dream”; those words ring as clear in my mind today as they did the day I first heard them on August 28, 1963. My mom was watching a march on Washington DC that day on the television. My brother and I were playing with our toy trucks right in front of our ironically black and white television. It was like time froze for a time and my mom and us stopped to pray for the nation right along with him. Martin Luther King spoke to the masses and the nation. At the time I didn’t realize just how much he was speaking directly to me.

For the next forty five years I walked away when I heard persons making racist comments and I still do to this day. My mom taught me to respect all life no matter what their color or belief. I didn’t want to be a part of the racist crowd but there are some things the government or our birthright just doesn’t give us a choice over. Yes they call me white on all the government forms but in reality I’m really closer to beige.

I know however for sure that I am serving the same God that Mr. King was. I also know that that same God is fixing to bring a change upon this country that will sweep from sea to shinning sea. I know this because I have the same faith that Martin Luther King had and so do countless millions of others. You see there is really only one race – the human race – you’re shallow if you see it any other way. It is now time to wake up from that dream state and bring those dreams to reality. It is time for all of us as Americans to take back our states and our country. It is time to change some of our racist laws and policies so that we can save our economy as well as our way of life.

I am referring to “White Collar Crime”; wow, that title even sounds racist and it is. White Collar doesn’t mean you are white it means you are smart or at least that is what a local Solicitor told me recently when I went up against a Local investment group in South Carolina. For those of you that didn’t know what white collar crime is I will attempt to help you understand. The investment group I am referring to were all nineteen as beige as I am. OK for the sake of being politically correct we were all white. They are all to use the Solicitors words “smart”, and on the surface they all have the appearance of conducting legitimate businesses in the community.

My relationship had begun with the aforementioned group almost five years ago. They collaborated to set up false corporations and used persons like myself to make millions all the while moving all the money out of the country to the Cayman Islands. In many cases they would commingle the funds into their own failing businesses so as to offset losses from clients and customers that didn’t pay their bills. In any case none of what they have done can be prosecuted in the criminal courts because it all falls under the “civil” rules. That means If I can’t come up with the hundred and sixty thousand dollars to go after them myself the government will just let them slide under the rug.

On September 30, 2007; some of the investment group succeeded in putting Quick Transportation out of business. Quick Transportation LLC was the business that I set up over two years earlier to get away from the aforementioned group. A few of them convinced me that the others were the guilty parties and they put trucks on with my company. Shortly thereafter they began stealing their own equipment and collecting on my companies insurance. In some cases they just kept collecting payments from Quick all the while keeping said equipment in warehouses that they owned. Hundreds of police reports were filed with virtually every law enforcement agency. Some of them located in other states as the group would take equipment from there and put the same in their warehouse for months all the while collecting checks for lease payments from Quick Transportation.

The group was so “smart” they even set me up with my first and subsequently second attorney’s. I paid thousands of dollars in retainers and not a single witness has been deposed. The sad thing is the first attorney I acquired was only less than a year after going into business with this group. They had set up a Corporation named Driver Resources Inc. located in Sumter, South Carolina. We grossed over seven point two million in just two years. All the money was factored through a bank in Alabama and the group would divide the proceeds on a monthly basis. When they didn’t pay me I acquired their attorney and they walked me all the way to the point I am at now. I have not been able to work for the past four months because each attempt I have made has been met with another theft of a truck. The group has gone so far as to have a mechanic from a neighboring community drain the antifreeze and oil out of a truck I own so that when I crank it, it would burn up.

Police reports were filed on all of the hundreds of crimes that were committed against me as well as my company. I even have the hard drive and server that proves that Driver Resources Inc. really existed but to no avail. If the government is doing something they aren’t telling me about it. Even though the constitution gives certain rights to each of us as a “victim” of crime you have to pay your own way. If I am to see justice I must find a way to find an attorney that is willing to go up against the system (brotherhood) that they have set up.

Although I am facing odds that most would turn away from I will not let the dream that Mr. King helped instill in me go away. I believe that this could be the turning point in our country. Please read more about what happened to Quick Transportation LLC in previously released statements. Stand up for equal rights and help fight against white collar crime. Don’t let rich white people continue get away with murder, theft, racketeering, commingling funds, insurance fraud, loan fraud, forging documents, and the list just goes on and on. Send your support letters to Quick Transportation; PO Box 1087, Sumter, South Carolina 29151. It is time for our jails to have a more fairly represented population. Let’s show the Sumter South Carolina Solicitor that they are not as smart as they think. Just because the government wants to let them go, let’s wake up, and take action to make this change.
check this site out --