Friday, February 24, 2017

Letters


Dear Christian Revival Center,

I read your sermon and most of them I agreed. I am also an ordained Baptist minister and suffered greatly by the burglary on a weekly basis. I don’t hate any particular group because every group has bad and good people. Although some group might committed more crimes than others. The problem is that God has given the Milk and and honey to His people which is America. But people destroyed His rules. The Ten Commandment were not allowed in our public schools but every other books are Ok which including Satanic Bible.

It is sad to see that this great country of ours turned into secularism. Everything goes except Jesus. As you may know, many people sold their souls to Satan for a moment of glory. Billy Graham said it one time, “If God don’t judge America soon, He has to raise Sodom and Gomorrah and apologize to them.

I hope you will continue to do good work for the Lord. After all, each one of us will face Him someday and there will be No “DREAM TEAM LAYERS.”

God Bless,

P.S. By the way, I am not white, the chosen race, but God only made one of me. Therefore, I am very unique. If you work for Him, you will get your reward someday that no one in this world can give you. A crown maybe reserve for you, just like Paul said. I sincerely hope each one of you will get a crown when yon meet our master someday and I hope you consider signing the petition I sent regarding tougher penalties for violent criminals. Thank you for the work you do.

Blessings

Ay Cin

Hello Ay,

Thank you for your letter and the petition. We will pass it along. In fact, the last letter I just answered was from a man who did not understand the Bible’s declaration of “Thou Shall not Kill.” I explained that correctly translated it is, “Thou Shall not murder”, meaning unjustified killing. A person has the right and duty to protect oneself and family.

As mentioned in your other e-mail, scholarships are also a great idea. However, I am sure you are aware that the end of the age has many apostate Christians who have turned against the teachings of Christ. The majority of Christians today are involved in building and supporting mega churches -churches of the Laodicean Church age – neither hot nor cold – but only concerned about being liked by the world. People are searching for answers, but those who are willing to get involved or support such programs as scholarships – true believing political office seekers – are few and far between. We consider our selves to be watchmen and are sounding the alarm to awaken our brothers and sisters. I trust you will do the same for your people.

Sincerely,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–
Hello, I know that race mixing is wrong. however is it OK to be friends with black,
Hispanic and Asian people. Would people from countries such as Italy, Albania, Greece and other eastern European countries be defined as Caucasian Christian, as they tend to have darker skin than some from say Germany or Ireland.

Reply:

Hello,
There is nothing wrong with being friendly – or work place friends – and technically friends out side of work. However, the more social contact one has with other races, the more interracial relationships (dating -marriage) etc. is encouraged.

For example: If you are out with friends of different races and an attractive white girl walks by – will all of you be interested or only the white guy. The more social interaction there is in society – the more interracial marriages and/or births result.

Also, just as there are dozens of racial types of the “black” race, different Asian people groups and so on, there are 5 sub-races of the “white” race generally known as Caucasian. There is more to it than skin color. The races are biologically different as evidenced by the emerging field of race based medicine. Some churches try to explain it away through a “Christian” version of evolution. In fact, some of the statements made by Christian teachers such as Ken Hamm are almost identical to those of Charles Darwin. It is too bad people gloss over the book of Genesis when it is so simple to see.

Back to your question. Those of Eastern European descent are usually white. But we must remember the trends in migration. Historically, the people of Harlem were white. Of course, now the people from Harlem are black. Still, while there have been some race mixing in the Eastern European nations – the majority are white. In fact, there is a huge surge of white pride groups and interest throughout the entire region and we currently have missionary friends there spreading the good news to those who have lost knowledge of their heritage.

God bless,
Rachel

Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is Jordan Todorov and I am staff writer for “168 Hours”- the biggest Bulgarian weekly newspaper with about 500 000 readers both in the country and abroad.

I am willing to make a two-page interview with your spokeswoman Rachel Pendergraft. Mrs Pendergraft will be featured in the newspaper special section called “The main interview” I will send you my questions via e-mail as soon as I get confirmation about the interview from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jordan Todorov

Reply:

Dear Mr. Todorov,

We do many interviews and would be happy to speak with you via phone, e-mail, or in person.

Regards,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

Hello Brother Robb

I was just thinking about you and just wanted to say hi. I have been preaching a lot of Revivals and seeing folks born again.

Take care

Bro Johnny and the Baptist Crusades

Reply:

Hello Bro. Johnny,

I spoke with Pastor Robb and I recall now that he had written back and forth a few times with an assistant of yours a few years ago – he was pleased to hear from you.

Seeing that you are in Tennessee, you might be interested in the festival we have down there in October. We’ve got a website about it – I’ll have it on line in the next day or so – hopefully today. You might be interested in having a table/exhibit/booth there or sending a representative.

In Christ,

Rachel

Reply:

Bless you sister Rachel and what a beautiful name. You’re so nice and I thank you so much for the invite. Those dates I will be in a Revival but you said I could send a representative. I am proud of our White Christian heritage and I am proud you all are celebrating it.

Please tell Pastor I surely want to meet him and you too Rachel.

Your Friend,

Brother Johnny
——————————————————————————–

Dear brothers and sisters,

I am most anxious to receive a copy of THE TORCH. I love this website and the excellent history that it has provided.

Yours truly,

JOHN

GALILEA, MALLORCA,

SPAIN

Reply:

Dear Mr. *****,

I have enjoyed our correspondence and look forward to hearing your review of our paper. You are to be commended for the good work you are doing there in your town. It helps of course that you are from a local family of honor and have a fine Christian reputation. The parish members there are lucky to have you.

In Christ,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

Hi, my name is Fawn. I am interested in attending a church service, however, I live in Western New York. I was wondering if there are any churches in my area? ( near Buffalo) I am also interested in learning more about the Klan. I am a 24 yr. old white female. I’m very disturbed by some issues in the US today, and would like to be able to share my opinions, views and ideals with someone, with out being judged as being racist or a hater…When my views are neither racist nor hateful.
I hope to hear from you soon!
Fawn

Reply:

Hello Fawn,

Like minded individuals are few and far between – though more are always learning truth and many are searching for answers. I do not know of a church in NY. There may be one – but I don’t know of one. A lot of people just have to get news letters, listen to CD’s, and have church in their own home like the early Christians did. You are always welcome to participate in our weekly services via the web as others do.

If you would forward your address I will be pleased to send you info from here and The Knights.

God bless,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

After watching the weekly news that you have on the other site, I’m glad that you addressed the shredding of the constitution by special interest groups who have money like the homosexual lobbyists and the NAACP. Also, what really got my interest was the fact was that the churches position on perverse sex acts that aren’t preached against anymore and that we Christians aren’t standing up for God by being active. I’m very active in telling the house and senate what I think because this nation will fall as a result of the tolerance of sin. Judicial activism has hurt this great nation of ours in the name of political correctness. I know what it is like to be a white minority from living in Atlanta. Blacks have the power and whites better not say anything or it is discrimination. But blacks can say anything. I have seen this with my own eyes. Not all blacks behave this way as I have met many on missions trips. Sadly so many in this country have an attitude that is dangerous to whites. Churches ignore it. Most of the people I have been on mission trips with act pretty self righteous about all the “good” they are doing. Then they come back to the states and call concerned whites haters. It’s a disgrace!

God Bless,

Shane

Reply:

Dear Shane,

Yes, I know what you mean. After all the good that has been done, minorities have a chip on their shoulder that makes the majority of them very dangerous. Blacks I have met from other black dominant countries don’t act the same way. Except of course for those in SA and Zimbabwe. The real threat is that so many want to silence the discussion. As long as we are free to educate, there is hope. It seems however, that Revelations is moving along just as written and we now see a remnant under persecution and duress.

Sincerely,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

Dear Pastor Robb,

“My white brothers and sisters – help spread the good news of White Christian Revival! Pastor Thomas Robb” I recently came across your Church’s website. On reading your introduction, I was curious as to understand why you had singled out white Christians. Surely anyone, if they believe in Christ and adhere to Christian beliefs and principles, can become a Christian.

I look forward to hearing from you

Michael

Reply:

Dear Michael,

Of course all can follow Christ. Still, that does not change the specific role that God has ordained the white race/Israel for. Please do a thorough study of the many articles on our site.

Sincerely,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

Dear Thomas,  I just read your mission statement and i cried myself to sleep. I read the bible front to back and never did it say GOD doesnt want mixed racsis Gods people are his. Look deep inside youself and let the Holy Spirit guide you because It is guiding me to tell you this that the organization you belong to does not represent God. why do you put race as a main factor in your issue? People are sinning gay men are getting married, children are having sex. These are true issues REVALTIONS speaks of. I just want you to look deep real deep and ask yourself ..AM I REPRESENTING MY LORD . God has a set mate for everyone white black jew or arabic no matter what colour or background they are your wife is your wife your husband is your husband and > your precious children are your own. You spoke of Love and so did Jesus if he was on this earth He would make it pretty clear to all. I love you very much even though I dont even know you.

Love Kenneth

Reply:

Dear Kenneth

I understand your dilemma. The Bible warns of this day and the day when the watchman would fail to warn the people of tares being sewn amongst the wheat. But God imparts truth only to those who have a sincere desire to know it and only in His timing. If you wish and earnestly seek to be meek (teachable) you can learn so much. Its right there for everyone to see in the Holy Scripture – only closed eyes can’t see it. I would suggest you read “Heirs of the Promise” on line book available at this site – and then you may want to order other books to read as well.

God bless you on your search,

Rachel
——————————————————————————–

Dear Rachel,
My deadline for the magazine is this Friday so I would love if you could answer my questions tonight if possible or during the day tomorrow (Thursday). I will repost the questions in this email. I hope that this email gets to you sooner than the previous ones that were heading to your junk folder. I’m sorry for any inconvenience.
Thank you,
Elizabeth
————–
1) Some events that ended in violence by the Klan in the 1980s have been on record as somewhat “joint efforts” by the Klan and neo-Nazi groups and it has been stated that the Klan seemed to become increasingly “nazified” during this time. How deep was the relationship between the Klan and neo-Nazi groups? Did they often hold events such as rallies together?

2) Why did you decide to become a member? Was it because of your father’s involvement in the group? What caused your father to become a member of the organization?

3) What made David Duke such an appealing leader to the Klan? Did the Klan support him during his attempts for political office?

4) Do you feel the media skewed people’s views of the Klan? Has the sole focus on the violence of the group given it a bad image?

5) How does Christianity fit into the Klan’s message and views?

My Reply:

I don’t know what events you are referring to as ending in violence, “by the Klan” in the 1980’s. Let me state a fact that you may be unaware of. The Ku Klux Klan name is in the public domain. This means that anyone can say they are in the Klan, can start a “Klan” or act as a spokesperson for a Klan group without it actually being a group at all. A recent issue of Time Magazine pointed out the same problem with the Tea Party. Who is the Tea Party? What do they believe? Where is their headquarters? What do they do? There are as vast a difference of opinion within the Tea Party as there are between Democrats and Republicans.

To say there are events ending in violence in the 1980’s by the Klan is not fair. However, I realize you don’t understand this legal concept and it is not readily taught so I will discuss one event that was “klan” related, but now after years of revision, the truth is being twisted.

On November 3, 1979 a Klan rally was planned for a city park in Greensboro, North Carolina. Unbeknown to the Klan members, one of their own was a paid FBI informant. Now, I will tell you that it is common knowledge that there are informants in all types of groups in the U.S. including political groups, both right wing and left wing, religious groups, civic groups etc. Our policy in The Knights is that it is good. This way the FBI knows that when we say publicly that we are non-violent then they also know privately that we are non-violent. The problem with the FBI in the 60’s, 70’s, and although officially banned, still operating into the 1980’s was an FBI program called Co-Intel. I have included info about this program at the end of my answers. The program was used to create community unrest and often used paid informants to instigate violence by one group against another. The program was used against both Communist groups, including Martin Luther King Jr., but more readily against white rights groups such as Ku Klux Klan styled groups. Just as Weapons of Mass Destruction was used by the Bush administration as an excuse to invade Iraq and to pass the Patriot Act which now serves as the means to spy on U.S. citizens on a scale compared to what was done in the Soviet Union, the U.S. government (not the government as a whole, but some within the government) used Co-Intel to further their own political agenda. This agenda was one to garner mass nationwide support for otherwise unpopular laws such as busing, desegregation, etc. Let me also say that while it is wrong that some “Klan” people allowed themselves to be goaded into violent activity by agent provocateurs (someone who leads others into committing an illegal act for political or financial gain), most of the violence that occurred during the years of 1965-185 were by anarchist Communist groups such as the Weather or Weathermen Underground. But because public opinion began to steadily press against traditional American ideals and laws, association in these groups became a plus. For example, Bill Ayers became a college professor in Chicago and close confidant and adviser to President Obama. I’m including info about the Weatherman at the end of my answers. This is from Wikipedia which is often considered unreliable, however the FBI files are 420 pages long. Sources are cited at the end of the info.

The reason I included info about these associated groups is because on November 3, 1979 when Klansmen traveled in route to their meeting destination and hit a roadblock and became surrounded by screaming Communists, they had a real reason to be scared. The fact is that these people were on their way to engage in a peaceful First Amendment protected protest and were led into a trap by a paid informant who in the lead truck, got out and shouted to the Communists, “You asked for the Klan, Now you’ve got em!” This was advertised as a, “Death to the Klan” rally and organizers had bussed in people from all over. These were the same types of people who were with Weathermen associated groups. These are the same types of people who threw chicken blood on disabled Vietnam solders coming back to the states. My mom and dad who lived near a big air force base in Arizona would go down and hold signs in support of the vets when they came back home and my mom would throw flowers over the fence to them. These guys often were carried off the planes in gurneys with no legs or missing arms. The Communists – often just teenagers or young adults – would instead run up and throw chicken blood on these poor guys. These are types of people that the white rights movement and other patriotic groups were speaking out against. For forty years radicals in this country have worked to turn the United states into a globalist / Communist loving country where wages are reduced, families are destroyed, borders are left unsecured, and traditional family values are mocked and made fun of. They won because now America’s majority accepts things that they never would have accepted 60 years ago. Below, after a few comments by myself, is an excerpt from an article by the Vice President of the United States Communist Party upon the election of Obama to the Presidency.

What has become known in the press as the Greensboro Massacre was never known as that when it happened. I was having dinner with my family the evening that it happened when a couple of the wives called our house just crying and sobbing. They had been in the cars with their husbands as they followed a guy in the lead car to their protest, but at the last minute the guy took a different way and they ended up on a dead end street surrounded by more than a hundred people beating on the cars with base ball bats, throwing rocks at them and rushing the cars. The truck in the lead had stopped and there was no way for any of them to get out. Fortunately the last car had a few rifles in the trunk, as rocks flew and one of the Communists started shooting at them with a handgun, a couple of the guys ducked down, ran alongside the car to the trunk, got their guns out and shot back. It was a miracle they weren’t murdered or that any of the others were murdered. All of those killed in the course of self – defense were Communists with a violent agenda. For example Dr. Mark Nathan worked on behalf of Zimbabwe freedom fighters. These were Communist revolutionaries. Zimbabwe used to be called Rhodesia and was known as the breadbasket of Africa. It was settled by whites, ruled by whites, and was an agricultural paradise. But due to Communist influence, the blacks there who had never worked the land, improved the land, built on the land, or done anything to civilize the land suddenly were told that they should revolt against the whites and the white farmers. They did – with the help of Communists like Mark Nathan, and hundreds of thousands of whites were massacred in the Rhodesian Genocide.

Killed recently by black Communist “freedom Fighters”

freque1 freque2 freque3

The same thing has happened in South Africa and continues to happen.

freque4So you want to talk about violent events. The number of actual violent events is so pitifully small it is hardly worth mentioning. Yes, there are crimes that are allegedly done by the Klan or neo-Nazis – whatever a Neo – Nazi is – but most are made up, are done by those attempting to gain sympathy – for example even Martin Luther King Jr. own family doesn’t believe that James Earl Ray was the assassin. They believe it was a government plant. And the terrible murder of the four little girls in the church has never been solved, though they did “convict” someone recently, but only after someone came forward with information they had just remembered. How convenient. The man had a rock solid alibi. The point is it is never right to murder or harm anyone. But you have grown up in a time when most educators have an anti-white agenda. They are victims themselves even, not realizing that there has been a huge tug of war in this country and the victors have written the news and told the stories to suit their purposes.

2.  I became a member because it makes sense. I have been privileged in that I am allowed to read and investigate for myself and make up my own mind. I read and investigate material from so many different sources. I read civil rights magazines, gay rights magazines, Communist magazines, Immigrant magazines, books, newspapers, etc. I listen to what they say, I watch their media, I read their speeches. I read and study history and then I verify what I read. I check sources. I learn why something is said. I want to know the truth. This has led me to believe that the greatest injustice in the world is the planned genocide of the white race. This makes me want to fight for my white brothers and sisters and for the children. Still, I don’t hate anyone and understand that they feel they are fighting for something also. But I believe, and history backs me up, that including Indian rule of law, this land was legally won and designed for white Christian people. And Europe was a great white Christian civilization. White people continue to give aid, education, financial assistance, medical care, love and compassion to non white people all over the world. European people and their descendants have invented, given, taught, and cared for people everywhere. No, they aren’t perfect. But those people who think that the world would be a better place without white people are really fooling themselves. I believe without them, the world would destroy itself within a century.

My father became a member because he was asked by David Duke to join. My father was a preacher who traveled all over the country speaking at churches and meetings. He was very well known and David Duke wanted him to join and be the official chaplain of the group. He didn’t like how some of the little groups – and most groups really only consist of 10-20 people – were, well, acting pretty stupid and living up to the terrible image that had become of them. He wanted people to know that when they joined his group that they were expected to conduct themselves as Christians and to live with good will to others while not ignoring the plight of whites.

The same media that makes fun of Christians – like in the recent movie the A-list – is the same media that paints an image of the Klan or anyone who works on behalf of white people. Again, it is an agenda. Take for instance, Joseph McCarthy. People are told how he was a terrible guy who tried to ruin people’s careers and people joke about how he claimed there was a Commie under every bush. The fact is, the man is an American Hero. He was right. Yes, they hate Christian people and white people who have been the major promoters of Christianity.

I am including a piece from a speech I give when I talk to members of law enforcement.

The core belief which motivate us is the following:

The United States of America was founded as a Christian nation thus we believe that the laws governing this nation were according to common Biblical and community standards.

We do not believe this is mere speculation, but historical fact. In our opinion, to deny the Christian foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; to deny the volumes of statements, statutes, laws, rules, judgments, and summaries, which clearly attest to the Christian foundation of the very United States government, is akin to denying the very existence of gravity.

What does this mean for us as individuals and as an organization. We believe that there is a certain element, long opposed to Christianity which works to undermine America’s historic rule of law – which is based upon Christian standards.

Of course, this comes to no shock to anyone here. Our belief – which concurs with factual documentation, that this was founded legally as a nation with a national faith is not a secret. It is in fact, our most oft repeated statement. I won’t bore you with a long discourse attempting to prove it.

What we want is the right to educate others about this historical fact. We feel it has important consequences for the peace, safety, and tranquility of America and its citizens. We do not desire to educate others in order to cause distress, emotional harm, or feelings of inadequacy.

We don’t care about scaring any one or group. We don’t care about establishing supremacy throughout the world. What we care about is protecting members of our racial family. And ultimately, friendly and peaceful relations with the other races is a worthy goal. Not once have we ever suggested otherwise.

It is we feel, by adhering to the historical and legal standards of the U.S. government which were of a Christian basis, that this peace between the races and peace between nations can be achieved.

It is our goal to reach as many people with this message as possible and to convince them of its merits. Our entire strategy consists of using lawful means in securing, via education, the voluntary acceptance of this goal on a mass scale.

Again, this is not a hidden agenda that we have. We are quite clear about it in our literature, speeches, writings, papers, etc.

What this DOES NOT mean:

This does not mean we want anyone to over throw the government.

This does not mean we want to force or coerce citizens into following a strict set of puritanical laws.

This does not mean we want to silence objectors

This does not mean we think everyone should be forced to accept Christianity.

What this DOES mean:

We believe that not without fault and occasionally grave error, the Constitution of the United States is the greatest man made document in the world and its genius was in its Christian foundation. This does not mean we worship the Constitution or view it as sacred.

We believe in the liberty of conscience.. We believe that the law should be based upon and applied according to Bible standards. We do not believe this is injurious to anyone. And we don’t propose to force the practice of any particular faith in the private sector.

We do believe that laws in this nation which made the profession of the Christian faith a requirement for holding public office to be fully Constitutional given its Christian origin.

We know that people disagree. We don’t think they are evil for disagreeing or that they are enemies, but rather they just don’t understand. This brings us back to our goal of educating the masses of people as to what we feel are certain truths the majority would accept if open dialogue was encouraged and not suppressed.

Leadership
In General – Past and Current – and Specific

The first “Klan” was a territorial / residential militia, loosely organized and holding a widespread grass roots support. In our view, and in the view of some historians, and at least one president {Wilson} the Klan heroically restored law and order in a time when anarchy was prevailing.

The Klan was not anti-government, nor anti-black, or anti-Catholic. Documented statements attest to the character of these Ku Kluxers as they were called. The Klan has never lived under the false assumption that whites or Caucasians do not commit crimes nor are incapable of abuse. Members were required to make of profession of loyalty to the United States Constitution and not the Confederate States of America. The Klan was disbanded after mis-use of the robe and secrecy by opportunists with no ideological base.

The Klan of the twenties was anti-Catholic and enjoyed political prestige and clout. The Klan was more of a giant fraternity than anything. There was a Klan for men, run by men with the assistance of a couple of female advertising agents and then was a Klan for women, run by women.

Contrary to present day popular opinion, the Klan was not engaged in wholesale lynching. Lynching was the acceptable community mode of legal executions and Klan involvement has been highly exaggerated. In many communities, where racial unrest did occur and lynching outside of a legal judgment happened, racial tension actually decreased as the Klan’s presence helped foster a sense of stability and calm. Illegal lynching decreased after the Klan organized in an area not vice versa.

The one exception to the Klan’s ordinary use of non-violent tactics in establishing social stability was in regard to domestic abuse situations. And one could argue that physical force used in the immediate defense of another is not violence.

The Klan viewed the repeat offender as unable to understand anything other than actual physical force. The women’s Klan and men’s Klan for the most part worked autonomously, but harmoniously. Klan women were instrumental in pushing for progressive social reform and this included attention to domestic abuse, which while not widespread, nevertheless occurred too frequently. Women could anonymously report repeat abusers and this information would be passed to a men’s committee who would look into the allegations. All care was taken to insure that claims were not unfounded and based upon deceitful purposes.

This is not to say that all Klan members, sympathizers, or supporters acted in the right at all times. But it was not the agreed upon and widely accepted course of action for the organization or other similar organizations based upon similar principle. The Klan was quite popular for a while and as the nationwide anti-Catholic hysteria ended – the Klan returned to its original position of acceptance of Catholics.

The later Klans of the fifties and sixties grew out of a period of extreme social unrest. I believe these people to have been very naive, but I do not place blame entirely upon them.

We feel that in the same way Communist organizations worked to establish a permanent distrust in law enforcement through liaisons with the media that same associated persons and groups worked to undermine the true intention of citizens who believed in racial separation. But more importantly dishonesty was used by some government operations by inserting “plants” into both right and left wing organization in order to initiate violent actions among some groups. The operation was coined co-Intel and I’m sure you are familiar with it.

There were a number of people across the nation that held to some of the same basic principles of the Klan, but felt that the last several generations of white separatist type groups had been a huge failure.

David Duke

Thomas Robb

These two especially have worked to take the “movement” in a entirely different direction. Often those within the “movement” are of vast varying political opinion. And for the most part we have desired to work outside of the “movement” and completely within the political system.

I do not intend to imply that all those who could be considered as in the movement do not wish to work toward their goal in a legal manner, but rather that for the most part, they have given up on any hope of achieving success politically.

We believe that the goals we have are fair and just and necessary. What’s more is that we believe these goals will make sense to those who will give diligent consideration to them.

Those who have been in and continued association with us do so because they are of the same mind-set.

We believe that this attitude is shared among the vast majority of Americans. And that mind-set is that anyone has the right within legal means, to work to change the opinions of others. Political changes seldom take place unless opinions support those changes.

Like attracts like. In this nation we are allowed a free contest in the political process. The road is long and difficult, but it is there nonetheless. And it is our intention to utilize it.

It has never been the goal of men like Robb or Duke to attract men or women with an anarchist type mentality. These types do exist across all political spectrum, across all racial lines, and social and economic brackets. These types are destabilizing and injurious to all people regardless. It directly contradict the law and order we desire. We do not advocate the “lone wolf” or “leaderless resistance” concept espoused by some on both the right and left. This is contrary to the organized discipline that is crucial to American society.

Not only are these concepts wrong, but we believe they do us a disservice. All people, whether on the left, right, or somewhere in between will use violent or illegal acts committed by the opposition as evidence as to why one opinion should be given more credibility than another. Everyone does – NAACP – LaRaza – Dem – Rep – and we are no exception.

It is our goal to consolidate the movement at large into a viable political apparatus.

While past leaders associated with Robb still view the political process as useful – Robb has remained convinced that the Ku Klux Klan name association with a political party such as The Knights Party will one day be an advertising and organizing asset. Our primary focus has been on organizing individuals who share this view into a stable and politically astute body.

It has been much publicized that this organization has been at the forefront of returning credibility to the white rights movement. And we have done this by never yielding to the anarchist attitude.

At the heart of our Christian and political belief is the idea that converts are won by compassion. It is not merely a legal or public relations issue. We truly believe as a part of our ethical code that defense alone is acceptable. Note: This does not mean we do not support capitol punishment as a legal recourse when used correctly.

We have not tailored our opinion to attract the most number of people – but rather – most people share at least a few common ideas with us.

This is a starting point we feel for open dialogue in America. We represent a silent yet large cross section of people. They honestly don’t hate anyone. They just want to go in a new direction and we want to help take them there.

Law enforcement is intended to be an unbiased, community based, operation to apprehend criminals.

Some would like that changed.

Traditionally, people are expected to defend themselves, their family, and their property. Organized communities (governments) may hire someone to assist in keeping the area orderly, but it wasn’t assumed that the law officer was liable if a crime did occur, because everyone knew the lawman couldn’t be everywhere all the time. Common sense dictates that self-defense on the part of man or animal is natural and society accepts this.

Law enforcement is an outreach of civilized and orderly society. It is because the community demands a certain conduct and adherence to discipline.

An attack on law enforcement is an attack on the concept of a civilized society.

It has long been the goal of some with a certain ideological base to undermine the public’s perception of law enforcement.

Law enforcement is accused of using racial profiling to discriminate against people of color. Law enforcement is accused of denying civil rights to Muslims. Law enforcement is said to be conducting an active program of genocide in the housing projects via the war on drugs. Law enforcement is said to foster homophobia by ignoring gay bashing.

Beginning in the sixties and seventies, law enforcement was increasingly portrayed by the entertainment industry as violent violators of civil rights. Freedom Riders would kick and taunt police dogs provoking a confrontation for the cameras.

As the racial makeup of the country began changing, law enforcement agencies began looking to outside sources for intelligence data.

The sound defeat of the anti-communist McCarthy and the media ridicule of his supporters – which were in the millions – had ushered in a new era in law enforcement. The media was insistent that the police were anti-Semitic and to counter that image new relations were readily encouraged with the most outspoken of Jewish interests.

This happens to be the Anti Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith.

Facts About the ADL

The ADL is a religious organization that believes the modern state of Israel is one and the same as the Israel nation referred to in Biblical text. They believe the land belongs to those commonly called Jews.

The ADL does not believe the governing laws of the nation should be based upon Christianity.

The extensive working relationship between many law enforcement agencies, media outlets, and the ADL are beyond dispute. The word of the ADL and their investigative reports are accepted as fact.

The ADL is a partisan organization with an agenda contrary to our agenda. This must be kept in mind when reviews of their investigative summaries are made.

It is not within the scope of this discussion to decide whether or not the ADL is a good organization or a bad organization. The answer is subjective.

For example:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance believes the ADL is a good organization.

The American Islamic Association believes the ADL is a bad organization.

Planned Parenthood believes the ADL is a good organization.

Los Vas Atzlan believes the ADL is a bad organization.

National Organization for Women believes the ADL is a good organization.

The Jewish Gun Owners Alliance believes the ADL is a bad organization.

GLSEN believes the ADL is a good organization.

Concerned Women for America believes the ADL is a bad organization.

Whether or not you believe the goals of the ADL are good or not, you

must agree on two things.

There are many people across racial and religious lines who do not support the ADL.

And

The ADL is not impartial.

Why then should the ADL be a source of intelligence information?

And

What evidence is there that the ADL information is correct?

And

What preventative measures have law enforcement agencies taken to insure that ADL reports are not tainted by an agenda.

Remember, it is not our question as to whether or not the ADL is a good or bad organization, but rather are they impartial?

Southern Poverty Law Center

Klan Watch

In 1986 The Montgomery Advertiser cited Harpers Magazine in an article by Ken Silverstein titled, “The Church of Morris Dees” documenting that the entire staff of SPLC had “resigned in protest of Dee’s refusal to address issues such as poverty, homelessness, voter registration and other issues they considered more pertinent to poor minorities rather than to get rich fighting the Klan chimera.”

Morris Dees had originally defended the Klan and campaigned for George Wallace.

In August 3, 1996 issue of USA Today the SPLC was named the “nation’s richest civil rights organization with $68 million in assets.” In 2000, assets were over $120 million.

Numerous complaints have been made by former black employees of the treatment they received while working at SPLC and reported by The Montgomery Advertiser.

Are the motives of SPLC sincere?

If they are not sincere, and they are as some claim, using the center as a mere fund raising tool, why would SPLC be considered a reliable source of information?

Groups that the SPLC have targeted as hate groups and dangerous include:

Those who believe in voluntary separation of the races

Those opposed to abortion

Home schoolers

Southern Heritage enthusiasts

militias

tax protesters

Second Amendment supporters

The Unlicenced church movement

Those concerned about the loss of American sovereignty

Nation of Islam

Jewish Defense League

Exodus International

SPLC has been very successful making inroads into the educational establishment by offering programs, studies, and teaching materials.

Does SPLC have an agenda?

Is SPLC impartial?

IF the answers are yes and no respectively, than the final question should be why is their information considered accurate and unbiased?

How the ADL and SPLC Educate the

Public Regarding White Rights’ Groups

1. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Extremists often attack the character of an opponent rather than deal with the facts or issues raised. They will question motives, qualifications, past associations, alleged values, personality, looks, mental health, and so on as a diversion from the issues under consideration. Some of these matters are not entirely irrelevant , but they should not serve to avoid the real issues. Those with white separatist views are called ignorant, violent, poor, trailer trash, women haters, etc. Or they may be called shrewd, cunning, diabolical, evil, threatening, repressive or aggressive. David Duke donned a Nazi uniform as a publicity stunt on a free expression day at his university. During his campaign, this stunt was the number one focus by the majority of the media. Opponents refused to debate the issues with him.

2. NAME-CALLING AND LABELING.

Extremists are quick to resort to epithets (racist, subversive, pervert, hate monger, nut, crackpot, degenerate, un-American, anti-Semite, red, commie, Nazi, kook, fink, liar, bigot, and so on) to label and condemn opponents in order to divert attention from their arguments and to discourage others from hearing them out. These epithets don’t have to be proved to be effective; the mere fact that they have been said is often enough.

3. IRRESPONSIBLE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.

Extremists tend to make sweeping claims or judgments on little or no evidence, and they have a tendency to confuse similarity with sameness. That is, they assume that because two (or more) things, events, or persons are alike in some respects, they must be alike in most respects. The sloppy use of analogy is a treacherous form of logic and has a high potential for false conclusions.

4. ADVOCACY OF DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Extremists generally tend to judge themselves or their interest group in terms of their intentions, which they tend to view very generously, and others by their acts, which they tend to view very critically. They would like you to accept their assertions on faith, but they demand proof for yours. They tend to engage in special pleading on behalf of themselves or their interests, usually because of some alleged special status, past circumstances, or present disadvantage. For example: reparations, slavery, alleged injustice.

5. ADVOCACY OF SOME DEGREE OF CENSORSHIP OR REPRESSION OF THEIR OPPONENTS AND/OR CRITICS.

This may include a very active campaign to keep opponents from media access and a public hearing, as in the case of blacklisting, banning or “quarantining” dissident spokespersons. They may actually lobby for legislation against speaking, writing, teaching, or instructing “subversive” or forbidden information or opinions. They may even attempt to keep offending books out of stores or off of library shelves, discourage advertising with threats of reprisals, and keep spokespersons for “offensive” views off the airwaves or certain columnists out of newspapers. In each case the goal is some kind of information control. Extremists would prefer that you listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges their views. For example: Hate Speech, thought crimes

6. TENDENCY TOWARD ARGUMENT BY INTIMIDATION.

Extremists tend to frame their arguments in such a way as to intimidate others into accepting their premises and conclusions. To disagree with them is to “ally oneself with the devil,” or to give aid and comfort to the enemy. They use a lot of moralizing and pontificating, and tend to be very judgmental. This shrill, harsh rhetorical style allows them to keep their opponents and critics on the defensive, cuts off troublesome lines of argument, and allows them to define the perimeters of debate. For example: Supporters of tighter immigration control are racist, imperialistic.

7. USE OF SLOGANS, BUZZWORDS, AND THOUGHT-STOPPING CLICHES.

For many extremists shortcuts in thinking and in reasoning matters out seem to be necessary in order to avoid or evade awareness of troublesome facts and compelling counter-arguments. Extremists generally behave in ways that reinforce their prejudices and alter their own consciousness in a manner that bolsters their false confidence and sense of self-righteousness. Stop the Hate, Can the Klan, Death to the Klan, No Place for Hate

8. BELIEF THAT IT’S OKAY TO DO BAD THINGS IN THE SERVICE OF A “GOOD” CAUSE.

Extremists may deliberately lie, distort, misquote, slander, defame, or libel their opponents and/or critics, engage in censorship or repression , or undertake violence in “special cases.” This is done with little or no remorse as long as it’s in the service of defeating the Communists or Fascists or whomever. Defeating an “enemy” becomes an all-encompassing goal to which other values are subordinate. With extremists, the end justifies the means.

9. HYPERSENSITIVITY AND VIGILANCE.

Extremists perceive hostile innuendo in even casual comments; imagine rejection and antagonism concealed in honest disagreement and dissent; see “latent” subversion, anti-Semitism, perversion, racism, disloyalty, and so on in innocent gestures and ambiguous behaviors. Although few extremists are clinically paranoid, many of them adopt a paranoid style with its attendant hostility and distrust.

10. PROBLEMS TOLERATING AMBIGUITY AND UNCERTAINTY.

Indeed, the ideologies and belief systems to which extremists tend to attach themselves often represent grasping for certainty in an uncertain world, or an attempt to achieve absolute security in an environment that is naturally unpredictable or perhaps populated by people with interests opposed to their own. Extremists exhibit a kind of risk-evasiveness that compels them to engage in controlling and manipulative behavior, both on a personal level and in a political context, to protect themselves from the unforeseen and unknown. The more laws or “rules” there are that regulate the behavior of others–particular their “enemies”–the more secure extremists feel.

Excerpts from Laird Wilcox’s The Hoaxer Project

WHY WE BELIEVE “HATE CRIME” CLASSIFICATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1. The very term “hate” (or malicious harassment, etc. )is subjective and often defined by political interest groups differently than the dictionary definition. Instead of targeting crimes based on the emotion hate, these statutes are really meant to target actions by people whose political philosophy is in opposition to the backers of “hate” crime legislation.

2. With these statutes, there arises the possibility that a criminal’s expression will be chilled during the commission of a crime. A criminal who is aware of the “hate crime” statute( s) may purposefully decline to enunciate his opinions or otherwise express his thoughts during the commission of a crime solely to avoid prosecution under the hate crime statutes. No matter how you look at it, this has the effect of chilling free speech and is in violation of the First Amendment.

3. The evidence-gathering of “hate crime” investigations is particularly onerous on freedom of speech. Often, hate crime reports will include mountains of statements gathered which are by no means criminal in themselves. The very investigation of many of these claims is conducted willfully in a manner that targets expression such as leafleting.

4. The Hate Crime Statistic Act and other state statutes serve no legitimate law enforcement purpose. In many countries, speech itself if considered offensive – not necessarily untrue or historical – is a criminal offense.

5 The extent to which a person is offended is now a determinant of a crime. Thus a symbolic act or statement which may not offend some people may be considered a “hate crime” if some other people (or even one person) take(s) offense to it.

Laird Wilcox’s List of 9 Traits that suggest a “Hate Crime” is a Hoax

Laird Wilcox, a Kansas hate crime researcher who has documented over 140 cases of provably fraudulent hate crimes worldwide, offered a list of suspicious characteristics of hate crime claims in his 1994 book Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America, (Editorial Research Service, P.O.B. 2047, Olathe, KS 66061, p. 125) It seems that law enforcement agencies have observed certain patterns that tend to distinguish hoaxes from real racist and anti-Semitic incidents.

1) An incident that can’t be corroborated with reasonable evidence or disinterested witnesses, or is accompanied by an account which contains inconsistencies, or when the alleged victim suddenly refuses to talk to police

2) An incident that occurs just when it’s “needed” to promote awareness or sensitivity to racism or anti-Semitism, to disarm critics and make them reluctant to “talk back.” Be particularly alert for hoaxes during appropriate holidays, birthdays, or on anniversaries of important events. Hoaxes may also occur following at times when the issue of prejudice and discrimination is. in the news.

3) Repeat incidents, especially with “difficult,” resentful and easily offended individuals who frequently complain of disrespect, slights, insults or harassment.

4) An incident that is particularly skillfully exploited by the alleged victim to attain victim status, manipulate institutions, obtain concessions, special privileges, or money.

5.When the victims response to a hate crime is particularly skillful and articulate, or when supporters seem very well-organized and appear on the scene very quickly,

More excerpt:

it suggests some planning was afoot. (Many of Montana’s most notorious hate crime claims have been typified by this characteristic, including several which preceded a large organized publicity campaign and large-scale movement to achieve specific reactions from the general population.) Wilcox adds that” Because of the possibility of civil damages in hate crime cases, it is likely that hoaxes of this nature will be increasing. Be alert for cases where the issue of lawsuits and damage amounts emerge early in the event.” (Not only were several of the incidents specifically cited as damages in the Abarr Case, but one of the primary plaintiffs in the case was the chief of police himself, who was in a position to manipulate the investigation of the incidents. Remember that on the very day of the Billings Gazette’s front -page coverage of the Schnitzer incident, Police Chief Wayne lnman reportedly suggested a link between the incident and the flyers of the Ku Klux Klan — the same flyers that he and Schnitzer would later sue the Klan over.)

5) Incidents which occur in improbable circumstances, such as racist graffiti in a mostly black dormitory or neighborhood, assaults that occurred in normally crowded areas with no witnesses, graffiti or vandalism in a room occupied only by the victim, and so on.

(What about hate vandalism affixed to a recently abandoned business front of a liberal activist rather than his occupied building?) 6) In the case of graffiti, carefully drawn symbols or slurs suggest that the author really wants to get a point across — precisely what is meant and the repulsive character of the persons behind it — and this suggests a hoax.

7) Where authorities suspect a hoax and this fact becomes known, the likelihood is enhanced somewhat when local anti-racist and radical special interest groups defame and vilify doubters. In fact, they may suspect it themselves.

8) Finally, several hoaxes have reported marking or symbols painted on their bodies by their alleged assailants. This rarely occurs in bona fide cases. (The ND incident is a glaring example of this.)

9) Copycat hoaxes are likely to occur after an earlier, perhaps bona fide, incident has taken place that has aroused great publicity. (Remember the rash of supposedly broken windows that were reported in Billings during the winter of 1993? Or the repeated swastikas spray-painted on downtown buildings –usually in pink — during 1995?) Wilcox adds that “A large number of similar incidents in a relatively short time very likely include some hoaxes.”

Obama LOVED by Communist Party, USA

They are Thrilled at His Win! Communist Party Cells are Celebrating All Over the U.S. – All Over the World! The Socialist Media Has Done the Bidding of the Communist Party – Portraying white people who love their Race as Evil Monsters! Don’t Forget the 22 Million White Christians Killed in the Marxist / Communist Revolution of Eastern Europe. Marxists are Winning today without tanks or gunfire. They have Won through the Use of Propaganda in the Schools, Modern churches, and Liberal Entertainment Industry. Now, 50 years after the supposed end of the Cold War – A Socialist – Loved by the Communist Party has been elected to the office of President.

Read Excerpts below from the vice chairman of the U.S. Communist Party and ask why God has allowed this to happen. Could it be because America has turned its back on its white Christian foundation? We believe the answer is a resounding YES!

On Nov. 4, 2008, it happened — Barack Obama became our first African American president. What an historic moment this is. A nation that held people of African descent in bondage for 300 years and denied them rights of citizenship under Jim Crow for a century more has elected a Black president. It doesn’t get any more historic than that.

This election became one of the most dramatic in history because it was a transformative election representing the end of extreme rightwing Republican rule and the beginning of a new democratic upsurge which could move our country in a progressive direction.

-snip-

Barack Obama’s election represents a mighty blow against racism and for democracy. Without a vigorous fight against racism Obama could not have won. To vote for Obama, tens of millions of white voters had to overcome the influences of racism. The Obama-Biden campaign has brought millions to recognize that racism isn’t just morally wrong but is also a block to a better life for all.

-snip-

Obama’s election continues the great civil rights struggles of the last century. Without the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, won during the great upsurge of the 1960s, his victory would not have been possible. The Obama campaign/movement is helping to set the stage for an offensive against racism and for peace and economic justice.

I remember the mood among Black people and in the country after the great 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It was electrifying. Now, Black people’s confidence, their hopes and dreams for freedom and the feeling that “we could win” have returned.

People waited in line for hours, determined to cast their vote. It was like South Africa in 1994 when Africans voted for the first time. Literally millions of African Americans registered to vote and came to the polls in massive numbers.

-snip-

After this election things are not going back to where they were. You can’t put the genie of struggle back in the bottle. The people have used this election to take back their country from a cutthroat capitalism that sees only its profits, not people. They have given the new administration and Congress a progressive mandate.

The grave human consequences of the economic collapse, the energy crisis and the impact of globalization must be addressed with a program rivaling the New Deal in size and scope. That is what the people voted for.
There are tears of pride in our community today because the forces of racism and war have been defeated at the polls. There are also tears of joy among working people of all races and nationalities because people can see a new day coming; a day when economic justice, peace and equality can be realized. That is what we must fight for.

Jarvis Tyner is Executive Vice Chair of the Communist Party USA.

Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization (abbreviated WUO), was an American radical left organization. It originated in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the violent overthrow of the US government and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat.[3]

With leadership whose revolutionary positions were characterized by Black separatist rhetoric,[2] the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and escape of Timothy Leary. The “Days of Rage”, their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chicago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO). The bombing attacks mostly targeted government buildings, along with several banks. Most were preceded by evacuation warnings, along with communiqués identifying the particular matter that the attack was intended to protest. For the bombing of the United States Capitol on March 1, 1971, they issued a communiqué saying it was “in protest of the US invasion of Laos.” For the bombing of the Pentagon on May 19, 1972, they stated it was “in retaliation for the US bombing raid in Hanoi.” For the January 29, 1975 bombing of the United States Department of State Building, they stated it was “in response to escalation in Vietnam.”[4]

The Weathermen grew out of the Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM) faction of SDS. It took its name from the lyric “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”, from the Bob Dylan song Subterranean Homesick Blues. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows was the title of a position paper they distributed at an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969. This founding document called for a “white fighting force” to be allied with the “Black Liberation Movement” and other radical movements[5] to achieve “the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism.”[6]

The Weathermen largely disintegrated after the United States reached a peace accord in Vietnam in 1973, which saw the general decline of the New Left.

Contents

1 Background and formation
1.1 SDS Convention, June 1969
1.2 SDS Convention, December, 1969
1.3 Ideology
1.4 Style
1.5 Practice
1.6 Recruitment
1.6.1 Armed propaganda?
2 Major Activities and Suspected activities
2.1 Haymarket Police Memorial bombing October 7, 1969
2.2 “Days of Rage” October 9, 1969
2.3 Flint War Council, December 27–31, 1969
2.4 Park Place Police Station bombing, February 1970
2.5 New York City, Judge Murtagh arson attacks, February 1970
2.6 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, March 1970
2.6.1 Underground Strategy Change
2.7 Declaration of a State of War, May 1970
2.8 June 1970 NYC Police Bombing
2.9 Federal Grand Jury Indicts 13 Weathermen Leaders
2.10 Timothy Leary prison break, September 1970
2.11 FBI’s Most Wanted List, October 1970
2.12 Pentagon Bombing, 1972
2.13 Charges Dropped, 1973
2.14 Prairie Fire 1974
2.15 COINTELPRO
3 Dissolution 1977 – 1981
3.1 Plot to Bomb Office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)
3.2 Brinks robbery (1981)
3.3 May 19th Communist Organization 1978 – 1985
4 Coalitions with non-WUO members
5 Legacy
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links and further reading

The Weathermen emerged from the campus-based opposition to the Vietnam War, as well as the Civil Rights Movements of the late 1960s. During this time, United States military action in Southeast Asia, especially in Vietnam, escalated. In the U.S., the anti-war sentiment was particularly pronounced during the 1968 U.S. presidential election.

The origins of the Weathermen can be traced to the collapse and fragmentation of the Students for a Democratic Society following a split between office holders of SDS, or “National Office,” and their supporters and the Progressive Labor Party. During the factional struggle National Office leaders such as Bernardine Dohrn and Mike Klonsky began announcing their emerging perspectives, and Klonksy published a document entitled “Toward a Revolutionary Youth Movement” (RYM). RYM promoted the philosophy that young workers possessed the potential to be a revolutionary force to overthrow capitalism, if not by themselves then by transmitting radical ideas to the working class. Klonsky’s document reflected the philosophy of the National Office and was eventually adopted as official SDS doctrine. During the summer of 1969, the National Office began to split. A group led by Klonsky became known as RYM II, and the other side, RYM I, was led by Dohrn and endorsed more aggressive tactics such as direct action, as some members felt that years of non-violent resistance had done little or nothing to stop the Vietnam War.[4] The Weathermen strongly sympathized with the radical Black Panthers. The police killing of Panther Fred Hampton prompted the Weatherman to issue a declaration of war upon the United States government.

We petitioned, we demonstrated, we sat in. I was willing to get hit over the head, I did; I was willing to go to prison, I did. To me, it was a question of what had to be done to stop the much greater violence that was going on.

—David Gilbert[4]

SDS Convention, June 1969
At an SDS convention in Chicago on June 18, 1969, the National Office attempted to convince unaffiliated delegates not to endorse a takeover of SDS by Progressive Labor who had packed the convention with their supporters.[8] At the beginning of the convention, two position papers were passed out by the National Office leadership, one a revised statement of Klonksy’s RYM manifesto, the other called “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows.” The latter document outlined the position of the group that would become the Weathermen. It had been signed by Karen Ashley, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, John Jacobs, Jeff Jones, Gerry Long, Howie Machtinger, Jim Mellen, Terry Robbins, Mark Rudd, and Steve Tappis. The document called for creating a clandestine revolutionary party.

The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible . A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of “sympathizers . ” Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle.[9]

At this convention the Weatherman faction of the Students for a Democratic Society, planned for October 8–11, as a “National Action” built around John Jacobs’ slogan, “bring the war home.”[10] The National Action grew out of a resolution drafted by Jacobs and introduced at the October 1968 SDS National Council meeting in Boulder, Colorado. The resolution, titled “The Elections Don’t Mean Shit—Vote Where the Power Is—Our Power Is In The Street” and adopted by the council, was prompted by the success of the Democratic National Convention protests in August 1968 and reflected Jacobs’ strong advocacy of direct action.[11]

As part of the “National Action Staff,” Jacobs was an integral part of the planning for what quickly came to be called “Four Days of Rage.”[10] For Jacobs, the goal of the “Days of Rage” was clear:

“Weatherman would shove the war down their dumb, fascist throats and show them, while we were at it, how much better we were than them, both tactically and strategically, as a people. In an all-out civil war over Vietnam and other fascist U.S. imperialism, we were going to bring the war home. ‘Turn the imperialists’ war into a civil war’, in Lenin’s words. And we were going to kick ass.”[12]

In July, 1969 30 members of Weatherman leadership traveled to Cuba and met with North Vietnamese representatives to gain from their revolutionary experience. The North Vietnamese requested armed political action in order to stop the US Government’s war in Vietnam. Subsequently, they accepted funding, training, recommendations on tactics and slogans from Cuba, and perhaps explosives as well.[13]

SDS Convention, December, 1969
After the Days of Rage riots the Weatherman held the last of its National Council meetings from December 26 to December 31, 1969 in Flint, Michigan. The meeting, dubbed the “War Council” by the 300 people who attended, adopted Jacobs’ call for violent revolution.[5] Dohrn opened the conference by telling the delegates they needed to stop being afraid and begin the “armed struggle.” Over the next five days, the participants met in informal groups to discuss what “going underground” meant, how best to organize collectives, and justifications for violence. In the evening, the groups reconvened for a mass “wargasm”—practicing karate, engaging in physical exercise, singing songs, and listening to speeches. The “War Council” ended with a major speech by John Jacobs. Jacobs condemned the “pacifism” of white middle-class American youth, a belief which he claimed they held because they were insulated from the violence which afflicted blacks and the poor. He predicted a successful revolution, and declared that youth were moving away from passivity and apathy and toward a new high-energy culture of “repersonalization” brought about by drugs, sex, and armed revolution.[5][14][15][16][17] “We’re against everything that’s ‘good and decent’ in honky America,” Jacobs said in his most commonly quoted statement. “We will burn and loot and destroy. We are the incubation of your mother’s nightmare.”[14]

Two major decisions came out of the “War Council.” The first was to go underground, and to begin a violent, armed struggle against the state without attempting to organize or mobilize a broad swath of the public. The Weather Underground hoped to create underground collectives in major cities throughout the country.[18] In fact, the Weathermen eventually created only three significant, active collectives; one in California, one in the Midwest, and one in New York City. The New York City collective was led by Jacobs and Terry Robbins, and included Ted Gold, Kathy Boudin, Cathy Wilkerson (Robbins’ girlfriend), and Diana Oughton.[11] Jacobs was one of Robbins’ biggest supporters, and pushed Weatherman to let Robbins be as violent as he wanted to be. The Weatherman national leadership agreed, as did the New York City collective.[19] The collective’s first target was Judge John Murtagh, who was overseeing the trial of the “Panther 21”.

The second major decision was the dissolution of Students for a Democratic Society. After the summer of 1969 fragmentation of SDS, Weatherman’s adherents explicitly claimed themselves the real leaders of SDS and retained control of the SDS National Office. Thereafter, any leaflet, label, or logo bearing the name “Students for a Democratic Society” or “SDS” was in fact the views and politics of Weatherman, not of the slate elected by Progressive Labor. Weatherman contained the vast majority of former SDS National Committee members, including Mark Rudd, David Gilbert and Bernardine Dohrn. The group, while small, was able to commandeer the mantle of SDS and all of its membership lists, but with Weatherman in charge there was little or no support from local branches or members of the organization,[20][21] and local chapters soon disbanded. At the “War Council,” the Weathermen had decided to close the SDS National Office, ending the major campus-based organization of the 1960s which at its peak was a mass organization with 100,000 members.[22]

Ideology
The thesis of Weatherman theory, as expounded in its founding document, You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows, was that “the main struggle going on in the world today is between U.S. imperialism and the national liberation struggles against it”,[23] based on Lenin’s theory of imperialism, first expounded in 1916 in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. In Weatherman theory “oppressed peoples” are the creators of the wealth of empire, “and it is to them that it belongs.” “The goal of revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interest of the oppressed peoples of the world.” “The goal is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism”[24]

The Vietnamese and other third world countries, as well as third world people within the United States play a vanguard role. They “set the terms for class struggle in America…”[25] The role of the “Revolutionary Youth Movement” is to build a centralized organization of revolutionaries, a “Marxist-Leninist Party” supported by a mass revolutionary movement to support international liberation movements and “open another battlefield of the revolution.”[26][27]

The theoretical basis of the Revolutionary Youth Movement was an insight that most of the American population, including both students and the supposed “middle class,” comprised, due to their relationship to the instruments of production, the working class,[28] thus the organizational basis of the SDS, which had begun in the elite colleges and had been extended to public institutions as the organization grew could be extended to youth as a whole including students, those serving in the military, and the unemployed. Students could be viewed as workers gaining skills prior to employment. This contrasted to the Progressive Labor view which viewed students and workers as being in separate categories which could ally, but should not jointly organize.[29]

Federal Bureau of Investigation analysis of the travel history of the founders and initial followers of the organization emphasized contacts with foreign governments, particularly the Cuban and North Vietnamese and their influence on the ideology of the organization. Participation in the Venceremos Brigade, a program which involved US students volunteering to work in the sugar harvest in Cuba, is highlighted as a common factor in the background of the founders of the Weather Underground, with China a secondary influence.[30] This experience was cited by both Kathy Boudin and Bernardine Dohrn as a major influence on their political development.[31]

The name Weatherman was derived from the Bob Dylan song “Subterranean Homesick Blues,” which featured the lyrics “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” The lyrics had been quoted at the bottom of an influential essay in the SDS newspaper, New Left Notes. Using this title the Weathermen meant, partially, to appeal to the segment of US youth inspired to action for social justice by Dylan’s songs.

The Weatherman group had long held that militancy was becoming more important than nonviolent forms of anti-war action, and that university-campus-based demonstrations needed to be punctuated with more dramatic actions, which had the potential to interfere with the US military and internal security apparatus. The belief was that these types of urban guerrilla actions would act as a catalyst for the coming revolution. Many international events indeed seemed to support the Weathermen’s overall assertion that worldwide revolution was imminent, such as the tumultuous Cultural Revolution in China; the 1968 student revolts in France, Mexico City and elsewhere; the Prague Spring; the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association; the emergence of the Tupamaros organization in Uruguay; the emergence of the Guinea-Bissauan Revolution and similar Marxist-led independence movements throughout Africa; and within the United States, the prominence of the Black Panther Party together with a series of “ghetto rebellions” throughout poor black neighborhoods across the country.[32]

We felt that doing nothing in a period of repressive violence is itself a form of violence. That’s really the part that I think is the hardest for people to understand. If you sit in your house, live your white life and go to your white job, and allow the country that you live in to murder people and to commit genocide, and you sit there and you don’t do anything about it, that’s violence.

—Naomi Jaffe[4]

The Weathermen were outspoken advocates of the critical concepts that later came to be known as “white privilege” and identity politics.[33][34] As the unrest in poor black neighborhoods intensified in the early 1970s, Bernardine Dohrn said, “White youth must choose sides now. They must either fight on the side of the oppressed, or be on the side of the oppressor.”[4]

Style
The rhetorical style of the Weathermen was described by one early observer, referring to Bill Ayers’s speech, “A Strategy to Win” delivered in Cleveland, as “outrageously arrogant:”

It typifies the aggressive tone Weatherman began to adopt towards those in and out of SDS who questioned Weatherman politics or plans for the National Action (Days of Rage). It best captures the rhetorical flavor of Weatherman on the attack—combative, uncompromising, confident, and outrageously arrogant.[35]

This style, expressed as open advocacy of resistance, resonated with the SDS’s student base.[36]

Practice
Shortly after its formation as an independent group, Weatherman created a central committee, the Weather Bureau, which assigned its cadres to a series of collectives in major cities. These cities included New York, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Chicago, the home of the SDS’ head office. The collectives set up under the Weather Bureau drew their design from Che Guevara’s foco theory, which focused on the building of small, semi-autonomous cells guided by a central leadership.[37] Members of collectives engaged in intensive criticism sessions which attempted to reconcile their prior and current activities and political positions to Weatherman doctrine. Monogamy and other exclusive sexual relationships came under attack, bisexuality was encouraged. Martial arts were practiced and occasional direct actions were engaged in.[38] This formation continued during 1969 and 1970 until the group went underground and a more relaxed lifestyle was adopted as the group blended into the counterculture.[39]

Recruitment
Weather used various means by which to recruit new members and send into motion a nation-wide revolt against the government. Weather members aimed to mobilize people into action against the established leaders of the nation and the patterns of injustice which existed in America and abroad due to America’s presence overseas. They also aimed to convince people to resist reliance upon their given privilege and to rebel and take arms if necessary. According to Weatherman, if people tolerated the unjust actions of the state, they became complicit in those actions. In the manifesto compiled by Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn, entitled “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism”, Weatherman explained that their intention was to encourage the people and provoke leaps in confidence and consciousness in an attempt to stir the imagination, organize the masses, and join in the people’s day-to-day struggles in every way possible.[40]

In the year 1960, almost 50 percent of America’s population was under 18 years of age. The number of young citizens set the stage for a widespread revolt against previously upheld structures of racism, sexism, and classism, the violence of the Vietnam War and America’s interventions abroad. At college campuses throughout the country, anger against “the Establishment’s” practices prompted both peaceful and violent protest.[41] The members of Weatherman targeted high school and college students, assuming they would be willing to rebel against the authoritative figures who had oppressed them, including cops, principals, and bosses.[42] Weather aimed to develop roots within the class struggle, targeting white working-class youths. The younger members of the working class became the focus of the organizing effort because they felt the oppression strongly in regards to the military draft, low-wage jobs, and schooling.[43] Schools became a common place of recruitment for the movement. In direct actions, dubbed Jailbreaks, Weather members invaded educational institutions as a means by which to recruit high school and college students. The motivation of these jailbreaks was the organization’s belief that school was where the youth were oppressed by the system and where they learned to tolerate society’s faults instead of rise against them. According to “Prairie Fire”, young people are channeled, coerced, misled, miseducated, misused in the school setting. It is in schools that the youth of the nation become alienated from the authentic processes of learning about the world [44]

Factions of the Weatherman organization began recruiting members by applying their own strategies. Women’s groups such as The Motor City Nine and Cell 16 took the lead in various recruitment efforts. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, a member of the radical women’s liberation group, Cell 16, spoke about her personal recruitment agenda saying that she wanted their group to go out in every corner of the country and tell women the truth, recruit the local people, poor and working-class people, in order to build a new society [45]

Berger explains the controversy surrounding recruitment strategies saying, “As an organizing strategy it was less than successful: white working class youths were more alienated than organized by Weather’s spectacles, and even some of those interested in the group were turned off by its early hi-jinks”[46] The methods of recruitment applied by the Weathermen met controversy as their call to arms became intensely radical and their organization’s leadership increasingly exclusive.

[edit] Armed propaganda?
In 2006 Dan Berger (writer, activist, and longtime anti-racism organizer)[47] states that following their initial set of bombings, which resulted in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion the organization adopted a new paradigm of direct action set forth in the communiqué New Morning, Changing Weather, which abjured attacks on people.[48] The shift in the organization’s outlook was in good part due to the 1970 death of Weatherman Terry Robbins in Greenwich Village townhouse explosion. Terry Robbins was renowned among the organization members for his radicalism and belief in violence as effective action.[49] According to Dan Berger a relatively sophisticated program of armed propaganda was adopted. This consisted of a series of bombings of government and corporate targets in retaliation for specific imperialist and oppressive acts. Small, well-constructed time bombs were used, generally in vents in restrooms, which exploded at times the spaces were empty. Timely warnings were made and communiqués issued explaining the reason for the actions.[50]

Major Activities and Suspected activities
Main article: List of Weatherman actions

Haymarket Police Memorial bombing October 7, 1969
Shortly before the Days of Rage demonstrations on October 7, 1969, the Weatherman planted a bomb that blew up a statue in Chicago built to commemorate police casualties incurred in the 1886 Haymarket Riot.[15] The blast broke nearly 100 windows and scattered pieces of the statue onto the Kennedy Expressway below.[51] The statue was rebuilt and unveiled on May 4, 1970 (coincidentally, the same day as the Kent State massacre), only to be blown up by the Weathermen a second time on October 6, 1970.[51][52] The statue was rebuilt once again and Mayor Richard J. Daley posted a 24-hour police guard to protect it.[51]

[edit] “Days of Rage” October 9, 1969
Main article: Days of Rage

The Haymarket Square police memorial (1889 photo)

One of the first acts of the Weathermen after splitting from SDS was to announce they would hold the “Days of Rage” that autumn. This was advertised to “Bring the war home!” Hoping to cause sufficient chaos to “wake” the American public out of what they saw as complacency toward the role of the US in the Vietnam War, the Weathermen meant it to be the largest protest of the decade. They had been told by their regional cadre to expect thousands to attend; however, when they arrived they found only a few hundred people. According to Bill Ayers in 2003, “The Days of Rage was an attempt to break from the norms of kind of acceptable theatre of ‘here are the anti-war people: containable, marginal, predictable, and here’s the little path they’re going to march down, and here’s where they can make their little statement.’ We wanted to say, “No, what we’re going to do is whatever we had to do to stop the violence in Vietnam.'”[4]

The protests did violate Bill Ayers stated expectations:

Of the police:

We were faced with revolutionaries.[53][54]

Of the city:

We never expected this kind of violent demonstration. There has always been a big difference between what they say and what they do.[54][55]

Headlines read:

SDS Women Fight Cops[56]

A comment in the press:

Here we see a new breed of pro-black, pro-Viet Cong hooligan revolutionaries who not demanding this or that change, but are out to totally disrupt the very fabric of this society, out the smash this social order.[56]

Though the October 8, 1969 rally in Chicago had failed to draw as many as the Weathermen had anticipated, the two or three hundred who did attend shocked police by rioting through the affluent Gold Coast neighborhood. They smashed the windows of a bank and those of many cars. The crowd ran four blocks before encountering police barricades. They charged the police but broke into small groups; more than 1,000 police counter-attacked. Many protesters were wearing motorcycle or football helmets, but the police were well trained and armed. Large amounts of tear gas were used, and at least twice police ran squad cars into the mob. The rioting lasted approximately half an hour, during which 28 policemen were injured. Six Weathermen were shot by the police and an unknown number injured; 68 rioters were arrested.[5][15][18][57]

For the next two days, the Weathermen held no rallies or protests. Supporters of the RYM II movement, led by Klonsky and Noel Ignatin, held peaceful rallies in front of the federal courthouse, an International Harvester factory, and Cook County Hospital. The largest event of the Days of Rage took place on Friday, October 9, when RYM II led an interracial march of 2,000 people through a Spanish-speaking part of Chicago.[5][57]

On October 10, the Weatherman attempted to regroup and resume their demonstrations. About 300 protesters marched through The Loop, Chicago’s main business district, watched by a double-line of heavily armed police. The protesters suddenly broke through the police lines and rampaged through the Loop, smashing the windows of cars and stores. The police were prepared, and quickly isolated the rioters. Within 15 minutes, more than half the crowd had been arrested.[5][57]

The Days of Rage cost Chicago and the state of Illinois approximately $183,000 ($100,000 for National Guard expenses, $35,000 in damages, and $20,000 for one injured citizen’s medical expenses). Most of the Weathermen and SDS leaders were now in jail, and the Weathermen would have to pay over $243,000 for their bail.[18]

Flint War Council, December 27–31, 1969
Main article: Flint war council

The “Flint War Council,” was a series of meetings of the Weather Underground Organization and associates in Flint, Michigan, that took place from 27–31 December 1969.[58] During these meetings, the decisions were made for the Weather Underground Organization to go underground [22] and to “engage in guerilla warfare against the U.S. government.”[59] This decision was made in response to increased pressure from law enforcement,[60] and a belief that underground guerilla warfare was the best way to combat the U.S. government.[59]

During a closed-door meeting of the Weather Underground’s leadership, the decision was also taken to abolish Students for a Democratic Society.[61] This decision reflected the splintering of SDS into hostile rival factions.[61]

Park Place Police Station bombing, February 1970
Main article: San Francisco Police Department Park Station bombing

On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[62] A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel.

New York City, Judge Murtagh arson attacks, February 1970
On February 21, 1970, gasoline-filled Molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh, who was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party over a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. One bottle full of gasoline had broken against the front steps, and flames scorched the overhanging wooden frame until its contents burnt out. In addition windows were broken, and another molotov cocktail caused paint charring on a car. Painted in red on the sidewalk in front of his house was “FREE THE PANTHER 21”, “THE VIET CONG HAVE WON”, and “KILL THE PIGS”.[63] The same night, molotov cocktails were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn.[64] The son of Justice Murtagh claims that the Weatherman were responsible for the attempted arson,[63] based on a letter promising more bombings sent by Bernardine Dohrn to the Associated Press in late November, 1970,[65] Some authors assume that letter is generally assumed to refer to an October bombing of a Queens courthouse.[66] NYPD Chief Detective Seedman quoted Dohrn’s December, letter as stating ‘two weeks before the townhouse explosion, four members of this (WUO) group had firebombed Judge Murtaugh’s house in New York as an action of support for the Panther 21.” [67] No one was caught or tried, for the arson attempt,[63] several sources[68][69][70][71] state that the arson attempt was enacted by the Weathermen but was considered a failure.

Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, March 1970
Main article: Greenwich Village townhouse explosion

On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of a Non-Commissioned Officers’ (NCO) dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[2] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated for unknown reasons. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin escaped unharmed. It was an accident of history that the site of the Village explosion was the former residence of Merrill Lynch brokerage firm founder Charles Merrill and his son, the poet James Merrill. The younger Merrill subsequently recorded the event in his poem 18 West 11th Street, the title being the address of the house. An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed enough explosive to “level … both sides of the street”.[72]

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, “The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don’t know what sort of defense that is.”[2]

Underground Strategy Change
After the Greenwich Village incident, per the December, 1969 “Flint War Council” decisions the group was now well underground, and began to refer to themselves as the Weather Underground Organization. At this juncture, WUO shrank considerably, becoming even fewer than they had been when first formed. The group was devastated by the loss of their friends, and in late April 1970, members of the Weathermen met in California to discuss what had happened in New York and the future of the organization. The group decided to reevaluate their strategy, particularly in regard to their initial belief in the acceptability of human casualties, rejecting such tactics as kidnapping and assassinations.[citation needed]

In 2003 interviews with Weather Underground members stated that they wanted to convince the American public that the United States was truly responsible for the calamity in Vietnam.[4] The group began striking at night, bombing empty offices, with warnings always issued in advance to ensure a safe evacuation. According to David Gilbert, who took part in the 1981 Brinks Robbery that killed three officers and was jailed for murder “[their] goal was to not hurt any people, and a lot of work went into that. But we wanted to pick targets that showed to the public who was responsible for what was really going on.”[4] After the Greenwich Village explosion, in a review of the film The Weather Underground a Guardian journalist restated the film’s contention that no one was killed by WUO bombs.[73]

We were very careful from the moment of the townhouse on to be sure we weren’t going to hurt anybody, and we never did hurt anybody. Whenever we put a bomb in a public space, we had figured out all kinds of ways to put checks and balances on the thing and also to get people away from it, and we were remarkably successful.

— Bill Ayers 2003[4]

Declaration of a State of War, May 1970
In response to the death of Black Panther member Fred Hampton in December, 1969 during a police raid, on May 21, 1970 the Weather Underground issued a “Declaration of War against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO), adopting fake identities, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers’ dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be “the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory”.[74]

We’ve known that our job is to lead white kids into armed revolution. We never intended to spend the next five to twenty-five years of our lives in jail. Ever since SDS became revolutionary, we’ve been trying to show how it is possible to overcome frustration and impotence that comes from trying to reform this system. Kids know the lines are drawn: revolution is touching all of our lives. Tens of thousands have learned that protest and marches don’t do it. Revolutionary violence is the only way.

—Bernardine Dohrn[75]

Bernardine Dohrn subsequently stated that it was Fred Hampton’s death that prompted the Weather Underground to declare war on the US government.

We felt that the murder of Fred required us to be more grave, more serious, more determined to raise the stakes and not just be the white people who wrung their hands when black people were being murdered.

—Bernardine Dohrn[4]

In December 1969, the Chicago Police Department, in conjunction with the FBI, conducted a raid on the home of Black Panther Fred Hampton, in which he and Mark Clark were killed, with four of the seven other people in the apartment wounded. The survivors of the raid were all charged with assault and attempted murder. The police claimed they shot in self-defense, although a controversy arose when the Panthers and other activists presented what was alleged to be evidence suggesting that the sleeping Panthers were not resisting arrest. The charges were later dropped, and the families of the dead won a $1.8 million settlement from the government. It was discovered in 1971 that Hampton had been targeted by the FBI’s COINTELPRO.[76][77]

Investigators search for clues after the May 19, 1972 Weatherman bombing of the Pentagon

On May 21, 1970, a communiqué from the Weather Underground was issued promising to attack a “symbol or institution of American injustice” within two weeks.[78] The communiqué included taunts towards the FBI, daring them to try and find the group, whose members were spread throughout the United States.[79] Many leftist organizations showed curiosity in the communiqué, and waited to see if the act would in fact occur. However, two weeks would pass without any occurrence.[80] Then on June 9, 1970, their first publicly acknowledged bombing occurred at a New York City police station,[81] saying it was “in outraged response to the assassination of the Soledad Brother George Jackson,”[4] who had recently been killed by prison guards in an escape attempt. The FBI placed the Weather Underground organization on the ten most-wanted list by the end of 1970.[15]

June 1970 NYC Police Bombing
On June 9, 1970, a bomb made with ten sticks of dynamite exploded in the NYC Police Headquarters. The explosion was preceded by a warning about six minutes prior to the detonation and subsequently by a WUO claim of responsibility.[82]

Federal Grand Jury Indicts 13 Weathermen Leaders
On July 23, 1970, a Detroit grand jury indicted 13 Weathermen members on conspiracy to bomb and kill. Ten of the thirteen already had outstanding federal warrants.[83]

[edit] Timothy Leary prison break, September 1970
In September 1970, the group took a $20,000 payment from a psychedelics distribution organization called The Brotherhood of Eternal Love to break LSD advocate Timothy Leary out of prison,[4] transporting him and his wife to Algeria. Leary joined Eldridge Cleaver in Algeria.

FBI’s Most Wanted List, October 1970
In October 1970, Bernardine Dohrn was put on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List [84]

Pentagon Bombing, 1972
On May 19, 1972, Ho Chi Minh’s birthday, The Weather Underground placed a bomb in the women’s bathroom in the Air Force wing of The Pentagon. The damage caused flooding that destroyed computer tapes holding classified information. Other radical groups worldwide applauded the bombing, illustrated by German youths protesting against American military systems in Frankfurt.[15] This was “in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi.” [NYT, 5/19/72][85]

Charges Dropped, 1973
In 1973 the government requested dropping charges against most of the WUO members. The requests cited a recent decision by the Supreme Court that barred electronic surveillance without a court order. This Supreme Court decision would hamper any prosecution of the WUO cases. In addition, the government did not want to reveal foreign intelligence secrets that a trial would require.[86] Bernardine Dohrn was removed from the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List.

Prairie Fire 1974
With the help from Clayton Van Lydegraf, the Weather Underground sought a more Marxist-Leninist ideological approach to the post-Vietnam reality.[87] The leading members of the Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn) collaborated on ideas and published their manifesto: “Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism.”[15] The name came from a quote by Mao Zedong, “a single spark can set a prairie fire.” By the summer of 1974, five thousand copies had surfaced in coffee houses and bookstores across America. Leftist newspapers praised the manifesto.[88] Abbie Hoffman publicly praised Prairie Fire and believed every American should be given a copy.[89] The manifesto’s influence initiated the formation of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee in several American cities. Hundreds of above-ground activists helped further the new political vision of the Weather Underground.[88] Among other things, the manifesto called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a means to achieving its social goals:

“The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war.”… “Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit.”… Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted…. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle. Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory.”[90]

Essentially, after the 1969 failure of the Days of Rage to involve thousands of youth in massive street fighting. Weather renounced most of the Left and decided to operate as an isolated underground group. Prairie Fire urged people to never “dissociate mass struggle from revolutionary violence.” To do so, claimed Weather, was to do the state’s work. Just as in 1969-70, Weather still refused to renounce revolutionary violence for “to leave people unprepared to fight the state is to seriously mislead them about the inevitable nature of what lies ahead.” However, the decision to build only an underground group caused the Weather Underground to lose sight of its commitment to mass struggle and made future alliances with the mass movement difficult and tenuous. By 1974, Weather had recognized this shortcoming and in Prairie Fire detailed a different strategy for the 1970s which demanded both mass and clandestine organizations. The role of the clandestine organization would be to build the “consciousness of action” and prepare the way for the development of a people’s militia. Concurrently, the role of the mass movement (i.e., above ground Prairie Fire collective) would include support for, and encouragement of, armed action. Such an alliance would, according to Weather, “help create the ‘sea’ for the guerrillas to swim in.” [91]

According to Bill Ayers in the late 1970s, the Weatherman group further split into two factions — the May 19th Communist Organization and the “Prairie Fire Collective” — with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers in the latter. The Prairie Fire Collective favored coming out of hiding and establishing an above ground revolutionary mass movement. With most WUO members facing the limited criminal charges (most charges had been dropped by the government in 1973) against them creating an above ground organization was more feasible. The May 19 Communist Organization continued in hiding as the clandestine organization. A decisive factor in Dohrn’s coming out of hiding were her concerns about her children (Bill Ayers, “Fugitive Days: Memoirs of An Antiwar Activist”, Beacon Press, 2001, 978-0-8070-3277-0). The Prairie Fire Collective faction started to surrender to the authorities from the late 1970s to the early 1980s. The remaining Weather Underground members continued to attack US institutions.

COINTELPRO
Main article: COINTELPRO

In April 1971, The “Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI” broke into an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania.[92] The group stole files with several hundred pages. A majority of the files targeted radical left wing groups, and some individuals, for criminal or subversive activities. By the end of April, the FBI offices were to terminate all files dealing with leftist groups.[93] The files were a part of an FBI program called COINTELPRO.[94] However, after COINTELPRO was dissolved in 1971 by J. Edgar Hoover,[95] the FBI continued its counterintelligence on groups like the Weather Underground. In 1973, the FBI established the “Special Target Information Development” program, where agents were sent undercover to penetrate the Weather Underground. Due to the illegal tactics of FBI agents involved with the program, government attorneys requested all weapons- and bomb-related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground. The most well-publicized of these tactics were the “black-bag jobs,” referring to searches conducted in the homes of relatives and acquaintances of Weatherman.[96] The Weather Underground was no longer a fugitive organization and could turn themselves in with minimal charges against them.[96] Additionally, the illegal domestic spying conducted by the C.I.A. in collaboration with the F.B.I. also lessened the legal repercussions for Weatherman turning themselves in.[97]

After the Church Committee revealed the FBI’s illegal activities, many agents were investigated. In 1976, former FBI Associate Director W. Mark Felt publicly stated he had ordered break-ins and that individual agents were merely obeying orders and should not be punished for it. Felt also stated that acting Director L. Patrick Gray had also authorized the break-ins, but Gray denied this. Felt said on the CBS television program Face the Nation that he would probably be a “scapegoat” for the Bureau’s work.[98] “I think this is justified and I’d do it again tomorrow,” he said on the program. While admitting the break-ins were “extralegal,” he justified it as protecting the “greater good.” Felt said:

To not take action against these people and know of a bombing in advance would simply be to stick your fingers in your ears and protect your eardrums when the explosion went off and then start the investigation.

The Attorney General in the new Carter administration, Griffin B. Bell, investigated, and on April 10, 1978, a federal grand jury charged Felt, Edward S. Miller, and Gray with conspiracy to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens by searching their homes without warrants. The case did not go to trial and was dropped by the government for lack of evidence on December 11, 1980.[citation needed]

The indictment charged violations of Title 18, Section 241 of the United States Code. The indictment charged Felt and the others

did unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to injure and oppress citizens of the United States who were relatives and acquaintances of the Weatherman fugitives, in the free exercise and enjoyments of certain rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.[99]

Felt and Miller attempted to plea bargain with the government, willing to agree to a misdemeanor guilty plea to conducting searches without warrants—a violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2236—but the government rejected the offer in 1979. After eight postponements, the case against Felt and Miller went to trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on September 18, 1980.[100] On October 29, former President Richard M. Nixon appeared as a rebuttal witness for the defense, and testified that presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt had authorized the bureau to engage in break-ins while conducting foreign intelligence and counterespionage investigations.[101] It was Nixon’s first courtroom appearance since his resignation in 1974. Nixon also contributed money to Felt’s legal defense fund, with Felt’s legal expenses running over $600,000. Also testifying were former Attorneys General Herbert Brownell, Jr., Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, John N. Mitchell, and Richard G. Kleindienst, all of whom said warrantless searches in national security matters were commonplace and not understood to be illegal, but Mitchell and Kleindienst denied they had authorized any of the break-ins at issue in the trial.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on November 6, 1980. Although the charge carried a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, Felt was fined $5,000. (Miller was fined $3,500).[102] Writing in The New York Times a week after the conviction, Roy Cohn claimed that Felt and Miller were being used as scapegoats by the Carter administration and that it was an unfair prosecution. Cohn wrote it was the “final dirty trick” and that there had been no “personal motive” to their actions.[103] The Times saluted the convictions, saying that it showed “the case has established that zeal is no excuse for violating the Constitution”.[104] Felt and Miller appealed the verdict, and they were later pardoned by Ronald Reagan.[105] The Weather Underground never had more than 30 active members,[citation needed] an order of magnitude fewer than the number of federal agents assigned to investigate them.[citation needed] By targeting their bombs to attract media attention they gained more public awareness than much larger radical organizations.

Dissolution 1977 – 1981
Despite the change in their legal status (1973 dropped charges), the Weather Underground remained underground for a few more years. However, by 1976 the organization was disintegrating. The Weather Underground held a conference in Chicago called Hard Times. The idea was to create an umbrella organization for all radical groups. However, the event turned sour when Hispanic and Black groups accused the Weather Underground and the Prairie Fire Committee of limiting their roles in racial issues.[97] The Weather Underground faced accusations of abandonment of the revolution by reversing their original ideology.

The conference increased divisions within the Weather Underground. East coast members favored a commitment to violence and challenged commitments of old leaders, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones. These older members found they were no longer liable for federal prosecution because of illegal wire taps and the government’s unwillingness to reveal sources and methods favored a strategy of inversion where they would be above ground “revolutionary leaders”. Jeremy Varon argues that by 1977 the WUO had disbanded.[106] The federal government estimated that only 38 Weathermen had gone underground in 1970.[107] An FBI estimate in 1976, or slightly later, of then current membership was of down to 30 or fewer.[108]

Plot to Bomb Office of California State Senator John Briggs (1977)
In November 1977 five WUO members were arrested on conspiracy to bomb the office of California State Senator John Briggs. It was later revealed that the Revolutionary Committee and PFOC had been infiltrated by the FBI for almost six years. FBI Agents Richard J. Gianotti and William D. Reagan lost their cover in November when federal judges needed their testimony to issue warrants for the arrest of Clayton Van Lydegraf and four Weather people. The arrests were the results of the infiltration.[109][110] WUO members Judith Bissell, Thomas Justesen, Leslie Mullin, and Marc Curtis plead guilty while Clayton Van Lydegraf, who helped write the 1974 Prairie Fire Manifesto went to trial.[111]

Within two years, many members turned themselves in after taking advantage of President Jimmy Carter’s amnesty for draft dodgers.[15] Mark Rudd turned himself in to authorities on January 20, 1978. Rudd was fined $4,000 and received two years probation.[15] Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers turned themselves in on December 3, 1980, in New York, with substantial media coverage. Charges were dropped for Ayers. Dohrn received three years probation and a $15,000 fine.[15]

Brinks robbery (1981)
Certain members remained underground, joined splinter radical groups, and formed alliances with other radical groups. Some authors argue that years after the dissolution of the WUO, former members Kathy Boudin, Judith Alice Clark, and David Gilbert formed the May 19 Communist Organization. Other authors and the US government state that WUO formed an alliance with the Black Liberation Army and called this alliance the May 19 Communist Organization. On October 20, 1981 in Nanuet, New York, the group robbed a Brinks armored truck containing $1.6 million. The robbery was violent, resulting in the murders of two police officers and a security guard.[15] Boudin, Clark, and Gilbert were found guilty and sentenced to lengthy terms in prison. A number of media reports listed them as active Weatherman Underground members[112] considered the “last gasps” of the Weather Underground.[113] The documentary The Weather Underground described the Brinks Robbery as the “unofficial end” of the Weather Underground.[114]

May 19th Communist Organization 1978 – 1985
The Weather Underground members involved in the May 19th Communist Organization alliance with the Black Liberation Army continued in a series of jail breaks, armed robberies and bombings until most members were finally arrested in 1985 and sentenced as part of the Brinks Robbery and the Resistance Conspiracy case.[citation needed]

Coalitions with non-WUO members
Main article: Mother Right and the WUO

Main article: Jane Alpert

Main article: Seattle Liberation Front

Throughout the underground years, the Weather Underground members worked closely with their counterparts in other organizations, including Jane Alpert, to bring attention their further actions to the press. She helped Weatherman achieve their main goals of overthrowing the U.S. government through her writings.[115] However, there were inner tensions within the organization, brought about by her famous manifesto, “Mother Right” that specifically addressed the Weatherwomen to focus on their own cause other than anti-imperialism.[116] Weather members then wrote in response to her manifesto.

Susan Stern, a member of Weatherman and Seattle Liberation Front links the two political activist organizations together. While the groups share many of the same political points of view, they had different opinions when it came to personal relationships and the use of violence in protesting.[117][118]

Legacy
Widely-known members of the Weather Underground include Kathy Boudin, Mark Rudd, Terry Robbins, Ted Gold, Naomi Jaffe, Cathy Wilkerson, Jeff Jones, Eleanor Raskin, David Gilbert, Susan Stern, Bob Tomashevsky, Sam Karp, Russell Neufeld, Joe Kelly, Laura Whitehorn and the still-married couple Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. Most former Weathermen have successfully re-integrated into mainstream society, without necessarily repudiating their original intent.

Weatherman was referred to in its own time and afterwards as “terrorist.”[119][120][121] The group fell under the auspices of FBI-New York City Police Anti Terrorist Task Force, a forerunner of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces. The FBI, on its website, describes the organization as having been a “domestic terrorist group,” but no longer an active concern.[122] Others either dispute or clarify the categorization, or justify the group’s violence as an appropriate response to the Vietnam war. In his 2001 book about his Weatherman experiences, Bill Ayers stated his objection to describing the WUO (Weather Underground Organization) as “terrorist.” Ayers wrote: “Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we’re not terrorists.”[123] Dan Berger, in his book about the Weatherman, “Outlaws in America,” comments that the group “purposefully and successfully avoided injuring anyone… Its war against property by definition means that the WUO was not a terrorist organization.”[124]

Bill Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was quoted in an interview to say “I don’t regret setting bombs”[125] but has since claimed he was misquoted.[126] During the presidential election campaign of 2008, several candidates questioned Barack Obama’s contacts with Ayers, including Hillary Clinton,[127] John McCain and Sarah Palin.[128][129] Ayers responded in December 2008, after Obama’s election victory, in an op-ed piece in The New York Times:

We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war. … The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long. The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.[130]

Brian Flanagan has expressed regret for his actions during the Weatherman years, and compared the group’s activities to terrorism. Flanagan said: “When you feel that you have right on your side, you can do some pretty horrific things.”[131] Mark Rudd, now a teacher of mathematics at Central New Mexico Community College, has said he has “mixed feelings” and feelings of “guilt and shame.”

These are things I am not proud of, and I find it hard to speak publicly about them and to tease out what was right from what was wrong. I think that part of the Weatherman phenomenon that was right was our understanding of what the position of the United States is in the world. It was this knowledge that we just couldn’t handle; it was too big. We didn’t know what to do. In a way I still don’t know what to do with this knowledge. I don’t know what needs to be done now, and it’s still eating away at me just as it did 30 years ago.

—Mark Rudd[4]

A faction of the Weather Underground continues today as the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee. Their official site reads:

We oppose oppression in all its forms including racism, sexism, homophobia, classism and imperialism. We demand liberation and justice for all peoples. We recognize that we live in a capitalist system that favors a select few and oppresses the majority. This system cannot be reformed or voted out of office because reforms and elections do not challenge the fundamental causes of injustice.[132]

The site further supports armed struggle:

We also respect the right of people to take up armed struggle against colonialism for the liberation of oppressed peoples[133]
Statements in Underground, a film by Emile de Antonio, Turin Film (1976) DVD Image Entertainment
^ Lader, Lawrence. Power on the Left. (New York City: W W Norton, 1979.) 192
^ Page 249, Bernardine Dorn, Bill Ayers, and Jeff Jones, editors, Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiqués of the Weather Underground, Seven Stories Press (September, 2006), trade paperback, 390 pages, ISBN 1-58322-726-1 ISBN 978-1-58322-726-8 Reprinted from Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism: Political Statement of the Weather Underground
^ Page 42 in the essay “More on the Youth Movement” by Jim Mellen in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ Page 139 in the introduction by Harold Jacobs to the second section “Action in the Streets” in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ Page 302-304, Ravens in the Storm, Carl Oglesby, Scribner (2008), hardcover, 336 pages, ISBN 1-4165-4736-3 ISBN 978-1-4165-4736-5
^ Jeremy Varon, Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction, and The Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 57
^ Pages 266 to 282, Cathy Wilkerson, Flying Close to the Sun: My Life and Times as a Weatherman, Seven Stories Press (2007), hardcover, 422 pages, ISBN 978-1-58322-771-8
^ Pages 352 and 353, Cathy Wilkerson, Flying Close to the Sun: My Life and Times as a Weatherman, Seven Stories Press (2007), hardcover, 422 pages, ISBN 978-1-58322-771-8
^ Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers. and Jeff Jones, editors (2006). Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiqués of the Weather Underground, 1970-1974. New York: Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-726-1. p 239
^ “The Weather Underground”. Independent Lens. PBS. 2010 Independent Television Service. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground.
^ Berger, Dan, “Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity,” AK Press: Oakland, California, 2006, ISBN 1-904859-41-0 p 99
^ Jacobs, Ron The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, p 19
^ Dohrn, Bernardine. Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiques of the Weather Underground 1970–1974. Seven Stories Press. 2006. p.370.
^ Ortiz, Roxanne Dunbar. Outlaw woman: a memoir of the war years, 1960-1975. San Francisco, CA. City Lights: 2001. p. 154
^ Berger, Dan, “Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity,” AK Press: Oakland, California, 2006, ISBN 1-904859-41-0. p. 113
^ Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: the Weather Underground and the politics of solidarity By Dan Berger. AK Press. ISBN 1904859410, 9781904859413. . Retrieved November 19, 2009.
^ Pages 145 and 146, Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, Ak Press (2006), trade paperback, 432 pages, ISBN 1-904859-41-0 ISBN 978-1-904859-41-3
^ Jeremy Varon, Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction, and The Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 174
^ Pages 148 to 151, 154, Dan Berger, Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, Ak Press (2006), trade paperback, 432 pages, ISBN 1-904859-41-0 ISBN 978-1-904859-41-3
^ a b c Avrich. The Haymarket Tragedy. p. 431.
^ Adelman. Haymarket Revisited, p. 40.
^ Page 204 in the essay “The Second Battle of Chicago” by Tom Thomas in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ a b Page 259 in the essay “A Weatherman: You Do Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows” by Shin ‘ya Ono in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ Page 204, in the essay “The Second Battle of Chicago” by Tom Thomas in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ a b Page 258 in the essay “A Weatherman: You Do Need A Weatherman To Know Which Way The Wind Blows” by Shin ‘ya Ono in Weatherman, edited by Harold Jacobs, Ramparts Press (1970), trade paperback, 520 pages, ISBN 0-671-20725-3 ISBN 978-0-671-20725-0 Hardcover: ISBN 0-87867-001-7 ISBN 978-0-87867-001-7
^ a b c Jones, A Radical Line: From the Labor Movement to the Weather Underground, One Family’s Century of Conscience, 2004.
^ Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1976) Weather underground organization. Retrieved from http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm pgs. 382-383
^ a b Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1976). Weather underground organization. Retrieved from http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/weather.htm pgs. 382-383
^ Jacobs, R. (1997). The way the wind blew. Verso. pgs. 41-43.
^ a b Rudd, M. (2009). Underground: my life with sds and the weatherman. New York, NY: HarperCollins. pgs. 185-193.
^ [1] Jamison,Peter. Time Bomb, SF Weekly (September 14, 2009) Retrieved November 19, 2009
^ a b c Murtagh, John M. Fire in the Night, City Journal, April 30, 2008
^ Perlmutter, Emanuel (February 22, 1970). “Justice Murtagh’s Home Target of 3 Fire Bombs”. The New York Times. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FF83F5C117688D
DAB0A
94DA405B808BF1D3.
^ Fire in the Night |The Weathermen tried to kill my family | City Journal April 30, 2008
^ Queens Courthouse Damaged by Bomb; Warning Is Given New York Times, October 10, 2008
^ Seedman, Albert (1975). Chief!. Avon. p. 285. ISBN 978-0380003587.
^ [2] Jacobs, Ron The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, 1997, pg. 98
^ [3] Berger, Dan Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, 2006, pg. 341
^ [4] Lazerow, Jama, and Williams, Yohuru R., In Search of the Black Panther Party: New Perspectives on a Revolutionary, Social Science, 2006, pg. 243
^ [5] Wilkerson, Cathy, Flying Close to the Sun,Seven Stories Press, 2007, pp. 324-325
^ 020510 michael frank’s essay on 11th street
^ ] All the rage | Features | guardian.co.uk Film
^ Democracy Now! | Ex-Weather Underground Member Kathy Boudin Granted Parole
^ Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War
^ A Huey P. Newton Story – People – Other Players | PBS
^ American Experience | Eyes on the Prize | The Story of the Movement | PBS
^ Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS, (New York: Random House, 1973), 611.
^ Harold Jacobs ed., Weatherman, (Ramparts Press, 1970), 508-511.
^ Harold Jacobs ed., Weatherman, (Ramparts Press, 1970), 374.
^ Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS, (New York: Random House, 1973), 648.
^ The Weather Underground.. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. pp. 31–32,. http://www.archive.org/details/statedepartmentb00unit. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
^ The Weather Underground.. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. pp. 32, 131–132. http://www.archive.org/details/statedepartmentb00unit. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
^ The Weather Underground.. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. p. 36. http://www.archive.org/details/statedepartmentb00unit. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
^ Berger 330
^ The Weather Underground.. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. pp. 40, 47, 65-65, 111-112. http://www.archive.org/details/statedepartmentb00unit. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
^ Jacobs, Ron (1997). The Way The Wind Blew: A History Of The Weather Underground. Verso. p. 68. ISBN 1-85984-167-8. http://www.archive.org/stream/TheWayTheWindBlewAHistoryOfTheWeatherUnderground/
waythewindblew_djvu.txt. Retrieved December 28, 2009.
^ a b Jeremy Varon, Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction And Revolutionary Violence In The Sixties And Seventies, (Berkley: University of California Press, 2004), 292
^ Marty Jezer, Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel, (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992), 258-259.
^ Ayers, Bill; Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn: (1976). Prairie Fire. Weather Underground. http://zombietime.com/prairie_fire/.
^ Jacobs, Ron (1997). The Way The Wind Blew: A History Of The Weather Underground. Verso. pp. 76–77. ISBN 1-85984-167-8. http://www.archive.org/stream/TheWayTheWindBlewAHistoryOfTheWeatherUnderground/
waythewindblew_djvu.txt. Retrieved December 28, 2009.
^ David Cunningham, There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, And FBI Counterintellegence, (Berkley: University of California Press, 2004), 33.
^ David Cunningham, There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, And FBI Counterintellegence, (Berkley: University of California Press, 2004), 35.
^ Paul Wolf, COINTELPRO, www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm
^ Nelson Blackstock, Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, (New York: Anchor Foundation, 1990), 185.
^ a b Jeremy Varon, Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction And Revolutionary Violence In The Sixties And Seventies, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 297
^ a b Jeremy Varon, Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction And Revolutionary Violence In The Sixties And Seventies, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004), 296-7.
^ John Crewdson (August 30, 1976), “Ex-F.B.I. Aide Sees ‘Scapegoat’ Role”, The New York Times, p. 21.
^ Felt, FBI Pyramid, p. 333.
^ Robert Pear: “Conspiracy Trial for 2 Ex-F.B.I. Officials Accused in Break-ins”, The New York Times, September 19, 1980; & “Long Delayed Trial Over F.B.I. Break-ins to Start in Capital Tomorrow”, The New York Times, September 14, 1980, p. 30.
^ Robert Pear, “Testimony by Nixon Heard in F.B.I. Trial”, The New York Times, October 30, 1980.
^ Kessler, F.B.I.: Inside the Agency, p. 194.
^ Roy Cohn, “Stabbing the F.B.I.”, The New York Times, November 15, 1980, p. 20.
^ “The Right Punishment for F.B.I. Crimes.” (Editorial), The New York Times, December 18, 1980.
^ “Statement on Granting Pardons to W. Mark Felt and Edward S. Miller”. Reagan.utexas.edu. 1981-04-15. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/41581d.htm. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
^ Varon, Jeremy (2004). Bringing The War Home: The Weather Underground, The Red Army Faction And Revolutionary Violence In The Sixties And Seventies,. Berkley: University of California Press.. pp. 297–298.. .
^ The Weather Underground.. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1975. pp. 43–45. http://www.archive.org/details/statedepartmentb00unit. Retrieved December 20, 2009.
^ Page 3 FOIA FBI, Part IV, Individuals, Present WUO members
^ Gilbert 38
^ “Nation: Infiltrating the Underground”. Time Magazine. January 9, 1978. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912056,00.html. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
^ “Radicals Admit Bomb Attempts”. Spokane Daily Chronicle. Associated Press. December 20, 1978. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19781220&id=4MUSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F
_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6874,794947. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
^ “The Brinks Robbery of 1981 – The Crime Library – Crime Library on”. Trutv.com. 1970-03-06. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/1.html. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
^ Richard G. Braungart and Margret M. Braungart, “From Protest to Terrorism: The Case of the SDS and The Weathermen.”, International Movement And Research: Social Movements and Violence: Participation in Underground Organizations, Volume 4, (Greenwich: Jai Press, 1992.), 67.
^ “Independent Lens . THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND . The Movement”. PBS. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/weatherunderground/movement.html. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
^ Alpert, Jane (1981). Growing up Underground. New York: Morrow & Co, Inc.
^ Alpert, Jane (1974). Mother Right: A new feminist theory. Pittsburgh: Know, Inc.
^ David Aikman, In Seattle: Up from Revolution Time magazine, April 14, 1980
^ Walt Crowley, Rites of Passage, A Memoir of the Sixties in Seattle (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995)
^ No byline, UPI wire story, “Weathermen Got Name From Song: Groups Latest Designation Is Weather Underground”, as published in The New York Times, January 30, 1975: “On Jan. 19, 1971, Bernardine Dohrn, a leading Weatherperson who has never been caught, issued a statement from hiding suggesting that the group was considering tactics other than bombing and terrorism.”; Montgomery, Paul L., “Guilty Plea Entered in ‘Village’ Bombing: Cathlyn Wilkerson Could Be Given Probation or Up to 7 Years”, article, The New York Times, July 19, 1980: “the terrorist Weather Underground”; Powers, Thomas, and Franks, Lucinda, “Diana: The Making of a Terrorist,” UPI, news feature series and winner of the Pulitzer Prize; September 23, 1970: “Of the 400 people who attended the Flint council [of the Weatherman group], fewer than 100 went underground. For those few, committed to the revolution above all else, it was a matter of logic. Community organizing had failed. Mass demonstrations had failed. Fighting in the streets had failed. Only terror was left.” September 17, 1970: “She [Diana Oughton] never lost her gentleness, either, or her sense of morality; But consumed by revolutionary commitment, she became a terrorist, fully prepared to live as outlaw and killer.”
September 21, 1970: “The group’s opponents argued that the Weathermen were repeating the errors of the ‘Narodniki’ (Russian terrorists) who assassinated the czar in 1881 and set back the cause of reform in Russia for decades.”; Ayers, Bill, “Weather Underground Redux,” post April 20, 2006, “Bill Ayers” blog, retrieved September 21, 2008: “This was a time when I, along with most of my closest friends, were referred to again and again as ‘home-grown American terrorists’. That’s what Time magazine called us in 1970, and the New York Times, too, and that was the word hurled in my direction from the halls of Congress.”
^ The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: in 32 Volumes by Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1998, p 331 (“the “‘Weathermen’ or ‘Weather Underground,’ which employed terrorist tactics in its activities.”)
^ Mehnert, Klaus, “Twilight of the Young, The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy,” Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 1977, page 47: “Within the political youth movement of the late sixties (outside of Latin America), the ‘Weathermen’ were the first group to reach the front page because of terrorist activities.”; Martin, Gus, “Understanding Terrorism: Challenges,
Perspectives, and Issues”: A number of terrorist groups and cells grew out of this environment. Although the most prominent example was the Weatherman group […]”; Pruthi, R.K., An Encyclopaedic Survey of Global Terrorism in the 21st Century, 2003, p 182: “The best publicized domestic terrorist organization of the revolutionary left has been the Weatherman faction of Students for Democratic Society”; “The Terrorist Trap” by Jeffrey David Simon p 96: “the most active American terrorist group at the end of the 1960s”
^ Web page titled, “Byte Out of History: 1975 Terrorism Flashback: State Department Bombing”, at F.B.I. website, dated January 29, 2004. Retrieved September 2, 2008.
^ Ayers, Bill, “Fugitive Days,” Beacon Press, ISBN 0-8070-7124-2, p 263
^ Berger, Dan, “Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity,” AK Press: Oakland, California, 2006, ISBN 1-904859-41-0 pp 286-287; the book describes Berger as “a writer, activist, and PhD candidate,” and the book is dedicated to his grandmother and to Weatherman member David Gilbert
^ profile
^ Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy « Bill Ayers
^ “Transcript: Obama and Clinton Debate – ABC News”. Abcnews.go.com. 2008-04-16. http://abcnews.go.com/politics/democraticdebate/Story?id=4670271&page=2. Retrieved 2010-06-02.
^ “Ayers and Obama crossed paths on boards, records show”. CNN Politics.com. 2008-10-07. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/obama.ayers/index.html. Retrieved 2009-02-20.
^ Novak, Viveca; Jackson, Brooks (2008-10-10). “‘He Lied’ About Bill Ayers? McCain cranks out some
false and misleading attacks on Obama’s connection to a 1960s radical.”. FactCheck.org. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
. (2008-10-10). “Not a radical group, and Ayers didn’t run it”. PolitiFact.com (St. Petersburg Times). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/. Retrieved 2009-03-17.
^ Ayers, Bill (2008-12-06). “The Real Bill Ayers”. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html?em. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
^ FrontPage Magazine
^ Prairie Fire Organizing Committee: About Us
^ Prairiefire.org-Direct-Action

——————————————————————————–

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE

RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

_______

BOOK II
_______
FINAL REPORT

OF THE

SELECT COMMITTEE
TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS

WITH RESPECT TO

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
UNITED STATES SENATE

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL, SUPPLEMENTAL, AND SEPARATE
VIEWS
APRIL 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976

D. USING COVERT ACTION TO DISRUPT

AND DISCREDIT DOMESTIC GROUPS

MAJOR FINDING

The Committee finds that covert action programs have been used to disrupt the lawful political activities of individual Americans and groups and to discredit them, using dangerous and degrading tactics which are abhorrent in a free and decent society.

Subfindings

(a) Although the claimed purposes of these action programs were to protect the national security and to prevent violence, many of the victims were concededly nonviolent, were not controlled by a foreign power, and posed no threat to the national security.

(b) The acts taken interfered with the First Amendment rights of citizens. They were explicitly intended to deter citizens from joining groups, “neutralize” those who were already members, and prevent or inhibit the expression of ideas.

(c) The tactics used against Americans often risked and sometimes caused serious emotional, economic, or physical damage. Actions were taken which were designed to break up marriages, terminate funding or employment, and encourage gang warfare between violent rival groups. Due process of law forbids the use of such covert tactics, whether the victims are innocent law-abiding citizens or members of groups suspected of involvement in violence.

(d) The sustained use of such tactics by the FBI in an attempt to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., violated the law and fundamental human decency.

Elaboration of the Findings

For fifteen years from 1956 until 1971, the FBI carried out a series of covert action programs directed against American citizens. 1 These “counterintelligence programs” (shortened to the acronym COINTELPRO) resulted in part from frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government’s power to proceed overtly against dissident groups. 2

They ended formally in 1971 with the threat of public exposure. 3 Some of the findings discussed herein are related to the findings on lawlessness, overbreadth, and intrusive techniques previously set forth. Some of the most offensive actions in the FBI’s COINTELPRO programs (anonymous letters intended to break up marriages, or efforts to deprive people of their jobs, for example) were based upon the covert use of information obtained through overly-broad investigations and intrusive techniques. 4 Similarly, as noted above, COINTELPRO involved specific violations of law, and the law and the Constitution were “not [given] a thought” under the FBI’s policies. 5

But COINTELPRO was more than simply violating the law or the Constitution. In COINTELPRO the Bureau secretly 6 took the law into its own hands, going beyond the collection of intelligence and beyond its law enforcement function to act outside the legal process altogether and to covertly disrupt, discredit and harass groups and individuals. A law enforcement agency must not secretly usurp the functions of judge and jury, even when the investigation reveals criminal activity. But in COINTELPRO, the Bureau imposed summary punishment, not only on the allegedly violent, but also on the nonviolent advocates of change. Such action is the hallmark of the vigilante and has no place in a democratic society.

Under COINTELPRO, certain techniques the Bureau had used against hostile foreign agents were adoped for use against perceived domestic threats to the established political and social order. 7

Some of the targets of COINTELPRO were law-abiding citizens merely advocating change in our society. Other targets were members of groups that had been involved in violence, such as the Ku Klux Klan or the Black Panther Party. Some victims did nothing more than associate with targets. 8

The Committee does not condone acts of violence, but the response of Government to allegations of illegal conduct must comply with the due process of law demanded by the Constitution. Lawlessness by citizens does not justify lawlessness by Government.

The tactics which were employed by the Bureau are therefore unacceptable, even against the alleged criminal. The imprecision of the targeting compounded the abuse. Once the Government decided to take the law into its own hands, those unacceptable tactics came almost inevitably to be used not only against the “kid with the bomb” but also against the “kid with the bumper sticker.”

Subfinding (a)

Although the claimed purposes of these action programs were to protect the “national security” and to prevent violence, many of the victims were concededly nonviolent, were not controlled by a foreign power, and posed no threat to the “national security.”

The Bureau conducted five “counterintelligence programs” aimed against domestic groups: the “Communist Party, USA” program (1956-71); the “Socialist Workers Party” program (1961-69); the “White Hate” program (1964-1971); the “Black Nationalist-Hate Group” program (1967-71) ; and the “New Left” program (1968-71).

While the declared purposes of these programs were to protect the “national security” or prevent violence, Bureau witnesses admit that many of the targets were nonviolent and most had no connections with a foreign power. Indeed, nonviolent organizations and individuals were targeted because the Bureau believed they represented a “potential” for violence — and nonviolent citizens who were against the war in Vietnam were targeted because they gave “aid and comfort” to violent demonstrators by lending respectability to their cause. 11

The imprecision of the targeting is demonstrated by the inability of the Bureau to define the subjects of the programs. The Black Nationalist program, according to its supervisor, included “a great number of organizations that you might not today characterize as black nationalist but which were in fact primarily black.” 12 Thus, the nonviolent Southern Christian Leadership Conference was labeled as a Black Nationalist-“Hate Group.”

Furthermore, the actual targets were chosen from a far broader group than the titles of the programs would imply. The CPUSA program targeted not only Communist Party members but also sponsors of the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee 14 and civil rights leaders allegedly under Communist influence or not deemed to be “anti-Communist”. 15 The Socialist Workers Party program included non-SWP sponsors of antiwar demonstrations which were cosponsored by the SWP or the Young Socialist Alliance, its youth group. 16 The Black Nationalist program targeted a range of organizations from the Panthers to SNCC to the peaceful Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and included every Black Student Union and many other black student groups. 17 New Left targets ranged from the SDS 18 to the InterUniversity Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy, 19 from Antioch College (“vanguard of the New Left”) 20 to the New Mexico Free University and other “alternate” schools, 21 and from underground newspapers 22 to students protesting university censorship of a student publication by carrying signs with four-letter words on them. 23

Subfinding (b)

The acts taken interfered with the First Amendment rights of citizens. They were explicitly intended to deter citizens from joining groups, “neutralize” those who were already members, and prevent or inhibit the expression of ideas.

In achieving its purported goals Of protecting the national security and preventing violence, the Bureau attempted to deter membership in the target groups. As the supervisor of the “Black Nationalist” COINTELPRO stated, “Obviously, you are going to prevent violence or a greater amount of violence if you have smaller groups. 4 The chief of the COINTELPRO unit agreed: “We also made an effort . . . to deter recruitment where we could. This was done with the view that if we could curb the organization, we could curb the action or the violence within the organization.” 25 As noted above, many of the organizations “curbed” were not violent, and covert attacks on group membership contravened the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom to associate.

Nor was this the only First Amendment right violated by the Bureau. In addition to attempting to prevent people from joining or continuing to be members in target organizations, the Bureau tried to “deter or counteract” what it called “propaganda” 26 — the expression of ideas which it considered dangerous. Thus, the originating document for the “Black Nationalist” COINTELPRO noted that “consideration should be given to techniques to preclude” leaders of the target organizations “from spreading their philosophy publicly or through various mass communication media.” 27

Instructions to “preclude” free speech were not limited to “black nationalists;” they occurred in every program. In the New Left program, for instance, approximately thirty-nine percent of all actions attempted to keep targets from speaking, teaching, writing, or publishing. 28

The cases included attempts (sometimes successful) to prompt the firing of university and high school teachers; 29 to prevent targets from speaking on campus; 30 to stop chapters of target groups from being formed; 31 to prevent the distribution of books, newspapers, or periodicals; 32 to disrupt or cancel news conferences; 33 to interfere with peaceful demonstrations, including the SCLC’s Poor People’s Campaign and Washington Spring Project and most of the large anti-war marches; 34 and to deny facilities for meetings or conferences. 35

As the above cases demonstrate, the FBI was not just “chilling” free speech, but squarely attacking it.

The tactics used against Americans often risked and sometimes caused serious emotional, economic, or physical damage. Actions were taken which were designed to break up marriages, terminate funding or employment, and encourage gang warfare between violent rival groups. Due process of law forbids the use of such covert tactics whether the victims are innocent law-abiding citizens or members of groups suspected of involvement in violence. The former head of the Domestic Intelligence Division described counterintelligence as a “rough, tough, dirty, and dangerous” business. 36 His description was accurate.

One technique used in COINTELPRO involved sending anonymous letters to spouses intended, in the words of one proposal, to “produce ill-feeling and possibly a lasting distrust” between husband and wife, so that “concern over what to do about it” would distract the target from “time spent in the plots and plans” of the organization. 87 The image of an agent of the United States Government scrawling a poison-pen letter to someone’s wife in language usually reserved for bathroom walls is not a happy one. Nevertheless, anonymous letters were sent to, among others, a Klansman’s wife, informing her that her husband had “taken the flesh of another unto himself,” the other person being a woman named Ruby, with her “lust filled eyes and smart aleck figure;” 38 and to a “Black Nationalist’s” wife saying that her husband “been maken it here” with other women in his organization “and than he gives us this jive bout their better in bed then you.” 39 A husband who was concerned about his wife’s activities in a biracial group received a letter which started, “Look man I guess your old lady doesn’t get enough at home or she wouldn’t be shucking and jiving with our Black Men” in the group. 40 The Field Office reported as a “tangible result” of this letter that the target and her husband separated. 41

The Bureau also contacted employers and funding organizations in order to cause the firing of the targets or the termination of their support. 42 For example, priests who allowed their churches to be used for the Black Panther breakfast programs were targeted, and anonymous letters were sent to their bishops; 43 a television commentator who expressed admiration for a Black Nationalist leader and criticized heavy defense spending was transferred after the Bureau contacted his employer; 44 and an employee of the Urban League was fired after the FBI approached a “confidential source” in a foundation which funded the League. 45

The Bureau also encouraged “gang warfare” between violent groups. An FBI memorandum dated November 25,1968 to certain Field Offices conducting investigations of the Black Panther Party ordered recipient offices to submit “imaginative and hard-hitting counterintelligence measures aimed at crippling the BPP.” Proposals were to be received every two weeks. Particular attention was to be given to capitalizing upon differences between the Panthers and US, Inc. (an other “Black Nationalist” group), which had reached such proportions that “it is taking on the aura of gang warfare with attendant threats of murder and reprisals.” 45a On May 26,1970, after U.S. organization members had killed four BPP members and members of each organization had been shot and beaten by members of the other, the Field Office reported:

Information received from local sources indicate[s] that, in general, the membership of the Los Angeles BPP is physically afraid of US members and take premeditated precautions to avoid confrontations.

In view of their anxieties, it is not presently felt that the Los Angeles BPP can be prompted into what could result in an internecine struggle between the two organizations. . . .

The Los Angeles Division is aware of the mutually hostile feelings harbored between the organizations and the first opportunity to capitalize on the situation will be maximized. It is intended that US Inc. will be appropriately and discreetly advised of the time and location of BPP activities in order that the two organizations might be brought together and thus grant nature the opportunity to take’her due course. 46 [Emphasis added.]

A second Field Office noted:

Shootings, beatings and a high degree of unrest continues to prevail in the ghetto area of Southeast San Diego. Although no specific counterintelligence action can be credited with contributing to this overall situation, it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest is directly attributable to this program. 47

In another case, an anonymous letter was sent to the leader of the Blackstone Rangers (a group, according to the Field Offices’ proposal, “to whom violent-type activity, shooting, and the like are second nature”) advising him that “the brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there’s supposed to be a hit out for you.” The letter was intended to “intensify the degree of animosity between the two groups” and cause “retaliatory action which could disrupt the BPP or lead to reprisals against its leadership.” 48

Another technique which risked serious harm to the target was falsely labeling a target an informant. This technique was used in all five domestic COINTELPROs. When a member of a nonviolent group was successfully mislabeled as an informant, the result was alienation from the group. 49 When the target belonged to a group known to have killed suspected informants, the risk was substantially more serious. On several occasions, the Bureau used this technique against members of the Black Panther Party; it was used at least twice after FBI documents expressed concern over the possible consequences because two members of the BPP had been murdered as suspected informants. 50

The Bureau recognized that some techniques used in COINTELPRO were more likely than others to cause serious physical, emotional, or economic damage to the targets. 51 Any proposed use of such techniques — for example, encouraging enmity between violent rival groups, falsely labeling group members as informants, and mailing anonymous letters to targets’ spouses accusing the target of infidelity — was scrutinized carefully by headquarters supervisory personnel, in an attempt to balance the “greater good” to be achieved by the proposal against the known or risked harm to the target. If the “good” was sufficient, the proposal was approved. For instance, in discussing anonymous letters to spouses, the agent who supervised the New Left COINTELPRO stated:

[Before recommending approval] I would want to know what you want to get out of this, who are these people. If it’s somebody, and say they did split up, what would accrue from it as far as disrupting the New Left is concerned? Say they broke up, what then. . . .

[The question would be] is it worth it? 52

Similarly, with regard to causing false suspicions that an individual was an informant, the chief of the Racial Intelligence Section stated:

You have to be able to make decisions and I am sure that labeling somebody as an informant, that you’d want to make certain that it served a good purpose before you did it and not do it haphazardly…. It is a serious thing … As far as I am aware, in the black extremist area, by using that technique, no one was killed. I am sure of that. 52a

This official was asked whether the fact that no one was killed was the, result of “luck or planning.” He answered: “Oh, it just happened that way, I am sure.” 52b

It is intolerable in a free society that an agency of the Government should adopt such tactics, whether or not the targets are involved in criminal activity. The “greater good” of the country is in fact served by adherence to the rule of law mandated by the Constitution.

Subfinding (d)

The sustained use of such tactics by the FBI in an attempt to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., violated the law and fundamental human decency.

The Committee devoted substantial attention to the FBI’s covert action campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King because it demonstrates just how far the Government could go in a secret war against one citizen. In focusing upon Dr. King, however, it should not be forgotten that the Bureau carried out disruptive activities against hundreds of lesser known American citizens. It should also be borne in mind that positive action on the part of high Government officials outside the FBI might have prevented what occurred in this case. 53

The FBI’s claimed justification for targeting Dr. King — alleged Communist influence on him and the civil rights movement — is examined elsewhere in this report. 54

The FBI’s campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. began in December 1963, four months after the famous civil rights March on Washington, 55 when a nine-hour meeting was convened at FBI Headquarters to discuss various “avenues of approach aimed at neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.” 56 Following the meeting, agents in the field were instructed to “continue to gather information concerning King’s personal activities … in order that we may consider using this information at an opportune time in a counterintelligence move to discredit him.” 57

About two weeks after that conference, FBI agents planted a microphone in Dr. King’s bedroom at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. 58 During the next two years, the FBI installed at least fourteen more “bugs” in Dr. King’s hotel rooms across the country. 59 Physical and photographic surveillances accompanied some of the microphone, coverage. 60

The FBI also scrutinized Dr. King’s tax returns, monitored his financial affairs, and even tried to determine whether he had a secret foreign bank account. 61

In late 1964, a “sterilized” tape was prepared in a manner that would prevent attribution to the FBI and was “anonymously” mailed to Dr. King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize. 62 Enclosed in the package with the tape was an unsigned letter which warned Dr. King, “your end is approaching . . . you are finished.” The letter intimated that the tape might be publicly released, and closed with the following message:

King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you . . . 63

Dr. King’s associates have said he interpreted the message as an effort to induce him to commit suicide. 64

At about the same time that it mailed the “sanitized” tape, the FBI was also apparently offering tapes and transcripts to newsmen. 65 Later when civil rights leaders Roy Wilkins and James Farmer went to Washington to persuade Bureau officials to halt the FBI’s discrediting efforts, 66 they were told that “if King want[s] war we [are] prepared to give it to him.” 67

Shortly thereafter, Dr. King went to Europe to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The Bureau tried to undermine ambassadorial receptions in several of the countries he visited ’68 and when he returned to the United States, took steps to diminish support for a banquet and a special “day” being planned in his honor. 69

The Bureau’s actions against Dr. King included attempts to prevent him from meeting with world leaders, receiving honors or favorable publicity, and gaining financial support. When the Bureau learned of a possible meeting between Dr. King and the Pope in August 1964, the FBI asked Cardinal Spellman to try to arrange a cancellation of the audience. 70 Discovering that two schools (Springfield College and Marquette University) were going to honor Dr. King with special degrees in the spring of 1964, Bureau agents tried to convince officials at the schools to rescind their plans. 71 And when the Bureau learned in October 1966 that the Ford Foundation might grant three million dollars to Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, they asked a former FBI agent who was a high official at the Ford Motor Company to try to block the award. 72

A magazine was asked not to publish favorable articles about him. 73 Religious leaders and institutions were contacted to undermine their support of him. 74 Press conference questions were prepared and distributed to “friendly” journalists. 75 And plans were even discussed for sabotaging his political campaign in the event he decided to run for national office. 76 An SCLC employee was “anonymously” informed that the SCLC was trying to get rid of her “so that the Bureau [would be] in a position to capitalize on [her] bitterness.” 78 Bureau officials contacted members of Congress, 79 and special “off the record” testimony was prepared for the Director’s use before the House Appropriations Committee. 80

The “neutralization” program continued until Dr. King’s death. As late as March 1968, FBI agents were being instructed to neutralize Dr. King because he might become a “messiah” who could “unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement” if he were to “abandon his supposed ‘obedience’ to ‘white liberal doctrines’ (nonviolence) and embrace black nationalism.” 81 Steps were taken to subvert the “Poor People’s Campaign” which Dr. King was planning to lead in the spring of 1968. 82 Even after Dr. King’s death, agents in the field were proposing methods for harassing his widow 83 and Bureau officials were trying to prevent his birthday from becoming a national holiday. 84

The actions taken against Dr. King are indefensible. They represent a sad episode in the dark history of covert actions directed against law abiding citizens by a law enforcement agency.

Footnotes:

1 Before 1956 the FBI engaged in activities to disrupt and discredit Communists and (before World War II) Fascists, but not as part of a formal program. The Bureau is the only agency which carried on a sustained effort to “neutralize” domestic groups, although other agencies made sporadic attempts to disrupt dissident groups. (See Military Surveillance Report; IRS Report.)

2 The Bureau personnel involved in COINTELPRO link the first formal counterintelligence program, against the Communist Party, USA, to the Supreme Court reversal of the Smith Act convictions, which “made it impossible to prosecute Communist Party members at the time”. (COINTELPRO unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 14.) It should be noted, however, that the Court’s reversal occurred In 1957, the year after the program was instituted. This belief in the deficiencies of the law was a major factor in the four subsequent programs as well: “The other COINTELPRO programs were opened as the threat arose in areas of extremism and subversion and there were not adequate statutes to proceed against the organization or to prevent their activities.” (COINTELPRO Unit Chief, 10/16/75, p. 15.)

3 For further information on the termination of each of the programs, see The Accountability and Control Findings, p. 265 and the detailed reports on the Black Panther Party and COINTELPRO.

Although the programs have been formally terminated, Bureau witnesses agree that there is a “grey area” between “counter-intelligence” and investigative activities which are inherently disruptive. These investigative activities, continue. (See COINTELPRO Report: “Command and Control — The Problems of Oversight.”)

4 Information gained from electronic surveillance, informant coverage, burglaries, and confidential financial records was used in COINTELPRO. p. 275.)

5 Moore, 11/3/75, p. 83.

6 Field offices were instructed that no one outside the Bureau was to know that COINTELPRO existed, although certain persons in the executive branch and in Congress were told about — and did not object to — efforts to disrupt the CPUSA and the Klan. However, no one was told about the other COINTELPRO programs, or about the more dangerous and degrading techniques employed. (See p. 275.)

7 As the Chief of the Racial Intelligence Section put it:

“You can trace [the origins of COINTELPRO] up and back to foreign intelligence, particularly penetration of the group by the individual informant. Before you can engage in counterintelligence you must have intelligence. . . . If you have good intelligence and know what it’s going to do, you can seed distrust, sow misinformation. The same technique is used, misinformation, disruption, is used in the domestic groups, although in the domestic groups you are dealing in ’67 and ’68 with many, many more across the country … than you had ever dealt with as far as your foreign groups.” (Moore, 11/3/75, pp. 32-33.)

Former Assistant Director William C. Sullivan also testified that the “rough, tough, dirty business” of foreign counterintelligence was “brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate.” (Sullivan, 11/1/75, pp. 97-98.)

8 For example, parents and spouse, of targets received letters containing accusations of immoral conduct by the target. (Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/30/70; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/4/68.)

9 Huston, 9/23/75, Hearings, Vol. 2, p. 45.

10 Moore, 11/8/75, p. 37.

11 New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, p. 69.

12 Black Nationalist Supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 12.

13 omitted in original.

14 For example, the entire Unitarian Society of Cleveland was targeted because the minister and some members circulated a petition calling for the abolition of HUAC, and because the Church gave office space to the “Citizens for Constitutional Rights”. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/6/64.)

15 See Finding on “Overbreadth” p. 181.

16 For instance, the Bureau targeted two non-member students who participated in an anti-war “hunger strike” at Oberlin, which was “guided and directed” by the Young Socialists Alliance. The students’ parents received anonymous letters, purportedly from a friend of their sons. One letter expressed concern that a group of “left wing students” were “cynically using” the boy, which would lead to “injury” to his health and “damage to his academic standing”. The other letter also stated that it was motivated by concern for “damage” to the student’s “health and personal future” and “the belief that you may not be aware of John’s current involvement in left-wing activities.” (Memorandum from FBI headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/29/68.)

17 One proposal sought to expose Black Student Union Chapters as “breeding grounds for racial militancy” by an anonymous mailing to “all institutions where there are BSU chapters or incipient chapters”. (Memorandum from Portland Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/3/68.)

18 For example Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 10/31/68.

19 An anonymous letter was sent to “influential” Michigan political figures, the mass media, University of Michigan administrators, and the Board of Regents, in an attempt to “discredit and neutralize” the “communist activities” of the IUCDFP. The letter decried the “undue publicity” given anti-war protest activities which “undoubtedly give ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy” and encourage the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese in “refusing to come to the bargaining table”. The letter continued, “I wonder if the strategy is to bleed the United States white by prolonging the war in Vietnam and pave the way for a takeover by Russia?” (Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/11/66; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters, to Detroit Field Office 10/26/66.)

20 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 6/18/68.

21 The New Mexico Free University was targeted because it taught such courses as “confrontation politics” and “draft counselling”. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Albuquerque Field Office, 3/19/69.) In another case, an “alternate” school for students “aged five and beyond”, which was co-sponsored by the ACLU, was targeted because “from the staff being assembled, it appears that the school will be a New Left venture and of a radical revolutionary nature”. The Bureau contacted a confidential source in the bank financing the school so that he could “take steps to discourage its developments”. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 7/23/69.

22 See e.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 11/14/69.

23 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/4/68.

24 Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 24.

25 COINTELPRO unit chief, 10/12/75, p. 54.

26 COINTELPRO unit chief, 10/12/75, P. 54.

27 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC’s, 8/25/67.

28 The FBI was not the only intelligence agency to attempt to prevent the propagation of ideas with which it disagreed, but it was the only one to do so in any organized way. The IRS responded to Congressional and Administration pressure by targeting political organizations and dissidents for audit. The CIA Improperly obtained the tax returns of Ramparts magazine after it learned that the magazine intended to publish an article revealing Agency support of the National Student Association. The CIA saw the article as “an attack on CIA in particular and the Administration in general.” (CIA memorandum re: “IRS Briefing on Ramparts,” 2/2/67.)

29 For instance, a high school English teacher was targeted for inviting two poets to attend a class at his school. The poets were noted for their efforts in the draft resistance movement. The Bureau sent anonymous letters to two local newspapers, the Board of Education, and the school board. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 6/19/69.)

30 In one case, the Bureau attempted to stop a “Communist” speaker from appearing on campus. The sponsoring organization went to court and won an order permitting the lecture to proceed as scheduled; the Bureau then investigated the judge who issued the order. (Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters. 10/26/60; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 10/27/60, 10/28/, 10/31/60; Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to A. H. Belmont, 10/26/60.)

31 The Bureau tried on several occasions to prevent the formation of campus chapters of SDS and the Young Socialist Alliance. (See, e.g., Memorandum from San Antonio Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/1/69; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 5/1/69.)

32 For example, an anonymous letter to a state legislator protested the distribution on campus of an underground newspaper’s “depravity”, (Memorandum from Newark Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/23/69; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Newark Field Office, 6/4/69) and the Bureau anonymously contacted the landlady of premises rented by two “New Left” newspapers in an attempt to have them evicted. (Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/9/68; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 9/23/68.)

33 For example, a confidential source in a radio station was contacted In two successful attempts to cancel news conferences. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 10/1/65; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office 10/4/65; Memorandum from Boston Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/5/64; Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 6/25/64.)

34 For instance, the Bureau used the standard counterespionage technique of “disinformation” against demonstrators. In one case, the Chicago Field Office duplicated blank forms soliciting housing for demonstrators coming to Chicago for the Democratic National Convention, filled them out with fictitious names and addresses and sent them to the organizers. Demonstrators reportedly made “long and useless journeys to locate these addresses.” (Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters. 9/9/68.) The same program was carried out by the Washington Field Office when housing forms were distributed for demonstrators coming to the 1969 Presidential inaugural ceremonies. (Memorandum from ]FBI Headquarters to Washington Field Office. 1/10/69.) Army Intelligence agents occasionally took similar, but wholly unauthorized action, see Military Surveillance Report: Section Ill: “Domestic Radio Monitoring by ASA: 1967-1970.”

35 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego field office, 9/11/69.

36 Sullivan, 11/1/75, pp. 97-98.

37 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/14/69.

38 Memorandum from Richmond Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/26/66.

39 The wife who received this letter was described in the Field Office proposal as “faithful . . . an intelligent respectable young mother who is active in the AME Methodist Church.” (Memorandum from St. Louis Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/14/69.)

40 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/30/70.

41 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/19/70.

42 When the targets were teachers, the intent was to prevent the propagation of ideas. In the case of other employer contacts, the purpose was to stop a source of funds.

43 Memorandum from New Haven Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 9/9/69.

44 memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 3/28/69.

45 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 3/3/69.

45a Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office, 11/25/68.

46 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI headquarters, 5/26/70, pp. 1-2.

47 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI headquarters, 9/15/69.

48 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI headquarters, 1/12/69; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 1/30/69.

49 See, e.g., Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/30/69.

50 One proposal to label a BPP member a “pig informer” was rejected because the Panthers had recently murdered two suspected informers. The victims had not been targets of a Bureau effort to label them informants. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 2/18/71.) Nevertheless, two similar proposals were implemented a month later, (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Washington Field Office, 3/19/71; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Charlotte Field Office, 3/31/71.)

51 At least four assaults — two of them on women — were reported as “results” of Bureau actions, (See COINTELPRO Report, Section IV: Wartimes Technique Brought Home.)

52 New Left supervisor 10/28/75, pp. 72, 74.

52a Moore, 11/3/75, p. 62.

52b Moore, 11/3/75, p. 64.

53 See pp. 275-277 and 205-206 of this Report for a detailed discussion of which officials were aware or should have been aware of what the Bureau was doing to Dr. King and how their action or inaction might have contributed to what went on.

53 See Martin Luther King Report, Section III, “Concern in the FBI and the Kennedy Administration Over Allegations of Communist Influence in the Civil Rights Movement Increases, and the FBI Intensifies the Investigation: October 1962-October 1963.” See generally, Finding on Overbreadth, p. 175.

55 The August 1963 march on Washington was the occasion of Dr. Kings “I Have a Dream” speech, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. (See memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 8/30/63, characterizing the speech as “demagogic”.)

56 Memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 12/24/63. Although FBI officials were making derogatory references to Dr. King and passing personal information about Dr. King to their superiors. (Memorandum from Hoover to Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach, 8/13/63.) Prior to December 1963, the Committee had discovered no document reflecting a strategy to deliberately discredit him prior to the memorandum relating to the December 1963 meeting.

57 Memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 12/24/63.

58 The microphone was installed on January 5, 1964 (Memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 1/6/64.), just days after Dr. King’s picture appeared on the cover of Time magazine as “Man of the Year.” (Time Magazine, January 3, 1964.) Reading of the Time magazine award, the Director had written, “They had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one.” (Note on UP release, 12/29/63.)

59 FBI memoranda make clear that microphones were one of the techniques being used in the effort to obtain Information about Dr. King’s private life. (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan 1/28/64.) The microphones were installed at the following places: Washington: Willard Hotel (Jan. 1964) ; Milwaukee: Shroeder Hotel (Jan. 1964) ; Honolulu: Hilton Hawaiian Village (Feb. 1964) ; Detroit: Statler Hotel (March 1964) ; Sacramento: Senator Motel (Apr. 1964) ; New York City: Park Sheraton Hotel (Jan. 1965), Americana Hotel (Jan. and Nov. 1965), Sheraton Atlantic Hotel (May 1965), Astor Hotel (Oct. 1965), New York Hilton Hotel (Oct. 1965).

60 FBI summary memorandum, 10/3/75; memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 3/26/64; memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 2/22/64; and unsigned memorandum, 2/28/64.

61 Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 3/27/64; memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/2/64; memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William Sullivan, 7/14/65.

62 Sullivan 11/1/75, pp. 104-105, staff summary of a special agent interview, 7/25/75. Three days before the tape was mailed, Director Hoover had publicly branded Dr. King “the most notorious liar in the country” and Dr. King had responded with a criticism of the Bureau. (Memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 11/18/64; telegram from Martin Luther King to J. Edgar Hoover 11/19/64.)

63 This paragraph appears in a document in the form of a letter which the FBI has supplied to the Committee and which the Bureau maintains was discovered in the files of former Assistant Director Sullivan. (FBI memorandum to the Select Committee, 9/18/75.) Sullivan stated that he did not recall the letter and suggested that it may have been “planted” in his files by his former colleagues. (Sullivan 11/1/75, p. 104.) Congressman Andrew Young has informed the Committee that an identical paragraph was contained in the letter which was actually received by Dr. King with the tape, and that the letter the committee had, supplied by the Bureau, appears to be an “early draft.” (Young, 2/19/76, P. 36.)

Sullivan said that the purpose of sending the tape was “to blackmail King into silence . . . to stop him from criticising Hoover; . . . to diminish his stature. In other words, if it caused a break between Coretta and Martin Luther King, that would diminish his stature. It would weaken him as a leader.” (Sullivan, 11/1/75, 11/26/75, p. 152.)

64 Young, 2/19/76, p. 37, Time magazine had reported earlier in the year that Dr. King had attempted suicide twice as a child. [Time magazine, Jan. 4, 1964.]

65 Several newsmen have informed the Committee that they were offered this kind of material or that they were aware that such material was available. Some have refused to Identify the individuals who made the offers and others have said they could not recall their identities. Former FBI officials have denied that tapes or transcripts were offered to the press (e.g., DeLoach testimony, 11/26/75, p. 152) and the Bureau maintains that their files contain no documents reflecting that this occurred.

66 Staff interviews of Roy Wilkins, 11/23/75, and James Farmer, 11/13/75.

67 Memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 11/27/64; staff interview of James Farmer, 11/13/75. Three days after Wilkins’ meeting with DeLoach, Dr. King asked to see the Director, telling the press “the time has come to bring this controversy to an end.” (UPI release, 12/1/64) Dr. King and Hoover met the following day; the meeting was described as “amicable.” (Memoranda from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 12/1/64 and 12/2/64.) Despite the “amicable” meeting, the Bureau’s campaign against Dr. King continued.

68 Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 11/30/64; memorandum from Legat to FBI Headquarters, 12/10/64. Steps were also taken to thwart a meeting which Dr. King was planning to have with a foreign leader during this same trip (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 11/10/64; memorandum, from FBI Headquarters to Legat, 11/10/64), and to influence a pending USIA decision to send Dr. King on a ten-day lecture trip in Africa after receiving the Nobel Prize. (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 11/12/64.)

69 The Bureau was in touch with Atlanta Constitution publisher Ralph McGill, and tried to obtain the assistance of the Constitution’s editor, Eugene Patterson, to undermine the banquet. (Memorandum from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 12/21/64; staff summary of Eugene Patterson interview, 4/30/75.) A governor’s assistance was sought in the effort to “water down” the “King day.” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 3/2/65.)

70 The Bureau had decided it would be “astounding” for Dr. King to have an audience with the Pope and that plans for any such meeting should be “nipped In the bud.” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 8/31/64.) When the Bureau failed to block the meeting and the press reported that the audience was about to occur, the Director noted that this was “astounding.” (FBI Director’s notation on UPI release, 9/18/64). FBI officials took immediate steps to determine “if there could possibly have been a slip-up” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 9/17/64.)

71 The Bureau had decided that it would be “shocking indeed that the possibility exists that King may receive an Honorary Degree from the same Institution (Marquette) which honored the Director with such a Degree in 1950.” With respect to Springfield College, where the Director had also been offered an honorary degree, the Bureau’s decision about whom to contact included the observation that “it would not appear to be prudent to attempt to deal with” the President of the college because he “is very close to Sargent Shriver.” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 3/4/64; and 4/2/64; memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 4/8/64.)

72 Memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to Clyde Tolson, 10/25/66 and 10/26/66. At about the same time, the Bureau leaked a story to the press about Dr. King’s intention to seek financial assistance from Teamsters Union President James R. Hoffa because “[d]isclosure would be mutually embarrassing to both men and probably cause King’s quest for badly needed funds to fail in this instance” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 10/28/66.)

The Bureau also tried to block the National Science Foundation (NSF) from dealing with the SCLC. “It is incredible that an outfit such as the SCLC should be utilized for the purpose of recruiting Negroes to take part In the NSF program, particularly where funds of the U.S. Government are involved.” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 12/17/64.)

73 Memorandum from Special Agent to Cartha DeLoach, 11/3/64.

74 “It is shocking Indeed that King continues to be honored by religious groups.” (Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 2/1/65.) Contacts were made with representatives of the National Council of Churches of Christ, the Baptist World Alliance, the American Church in Paris, and Catholic Church, (Memoranda from William C. Sullivan to Alan Belmont, 6/12/64, 12/15/64 and 2/16/64; memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 2/18/66; memorandum from Chicago Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/24/66, and memorandum from Legat, Paris, to FBI Headquarters, 4/14/66 and 5/9/66.) The Director did disapprove a suggestion that religious leaders be permitted “to listen to sources we have” (FBI Director’s note on memorandum from Jones to Thomas Bishop, 12/8/64.)

75 Memorandum from Charles Brennan to William C. Sullivan, 3/8/67. The Bureau also disseminated to “friendly media sources” a newspaper article which was critical of Dr. King’s position on the Vietnam war. The stated purposes were to “publicize King as a traitor to his country and his race,” and to “reduce his income,” (memorandum from George C. Moore to William C. Sullivan, 10/18/67.) “Background information” was also given to at least one wire service (memorandum from Sizoo to William C. Sullivan, 5/24/65).

76 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office 5/18/67. There had been rumors about a “peace ticket” headed by Dr. King and Benjamin Spock.

77 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 4/13/64; memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/2/64.

78 Memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 8/14/65; memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 1/10/67.

‘Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 1/22/64; memorandum from Nicholas Callahan to John Mohr, 1/31/64. On one occasion the testimony leaked to other members of Congress, prompting the Director to note, “Someone on Rooney’s Committee certainly betrayed the secrecy of the ‘off the record’ testimony I gave re: King.” (Director’s note on memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 3/16/64.)

81 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SACs, 3/4/68.

82 Memorandum from George C. Moore to William C. Sullivan, 3/26/68.

83 Memorandum from Atlanta Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/18/69.

84 Memoranda: From George C. Moore to William C. Sullivan, 1/17/69; and from Jones to Thomas Bishop, 3/18/69. Steps were even taken to prevent the issuance of “commemorative medals.” (Memorandum from Jones to Thomas Bishop, 5/22/68.)