Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, January 10, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 54)

U.S. President Donald Trump (2nd L) and first lady Melania Trump (3rd L) stand with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2nd R), his wife Sara (R) and Israel's President Reuven Rivlin (L) upon their arrival at Ben Gurion International Airport in Lod near Tel Aviv, Israel May 22, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
U.S. President Donald Trump (2nd L) and first lady Melania Trump (3rd L) stand with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (2nd R), his wife Sara (R) and Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin (L) upon their arrival at Ben Gurion International Airport in Lod near Tel Aviv, Israel May 22, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald Trump is set to reveal his Middle East peace plan ahead of hosting Israeli leaders in Washington on Tuesday. The president invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his chief rival Benny Gantz to the White House.

Prime Minister Netanyahu leads the rightwing Likud Party, while Mr. Gantz leads the leftwing Blue and White Party. At a meeting last week, the prime minister suggested inviting his rival to Vice President Mike Pence.

The White House said the president has spoken with the Palestinians, though there is no indication whether they will be participating in the meeting.

Mideast peace talks completely collapsed in 2014 and, if past is prologue and statements are literal, then the Trump Administration will undoubtedly have a difficult task ahead of them.

Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said there could be no deal on a Middle East peace plan without “the approval of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership”.

“This is the only way if they are serious, if they are looking for stability in the whole region,” he added.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas review the honor guard during a reception ceremony at the presidential headquarters in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, May 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)
U.S. President Donald Trump and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas review the honor guard during a reception ceremony at the presidential headquarters in the West Bank town of Bethlehem, May 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

The Palestinians have preemptively rejected President Trump’s long-awaited Middle East peace plan, without even knowing what it entails. They blame the U.S. for forging a closer relationship with Israel, and boycotted political relations with the Trump Administration citing controversial decisions.

Among the most sticky points is the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the moving of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In 1995, Congress passed The Jerusalem Embassy and Relocation Act, which addresses both of those issues. Waivers are permitted by presidents in the event national security is a concern, which President Trump signed in June 2017.

It did little sway minds in Palestine.

In December 2017, the president made the “historic decision” to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In the announcement, he said the move was “long overdue” and “the right thing to do,” adding that Israel “like every other sovereign nation has the right to determine its capital.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, talk at a meeting at the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah January 4, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)
Former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, right, talk at a meeting at the presidential compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah January 4, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

In January 2018, former Secretary of State John Kerry met in London with Hussein Agha, a close associate of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He told him President Trump would be removed from office within a year, and not to enter into Mideast peace talks.

While there has been widespread media speculation and reports citing anonymous sources, the White House has held the details of the plan tight to the vest.

On Twitter, President Trump flatly called the veracity of the reports into question and said the U.S. “looks forward” to hosting the leaders next week.

“Reports about details and timing of our closely-held peace plan are purely speculative,” he tweeted.

President Donald Trump is set to reveal

DOJ Admits ‘Insufficient Predication to Establish Probable Cause’ to Spy on Carter Page

From left to right: Demoted FBI lawyer Lisa Page, her extramarital lover and reassigned former counterintelligence head Peter Strzok, fired former FBI director James Comey, and fired former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. (Photos: Reuters/FBI)
From left to right: Demoted FBI lawyer Lisa Page, her extramarital lover and reassigned former counterintelligence head Peter Strzok, fired former FBI director James Comey, and fired former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. (Photos: Reuters/FBI)

The Justice Department (DOJ) admitted there was “insufficient predication to establish probable cause” to spy on Carter Page, a newly unsealed court filing revealed on Thursday.

Judge James Boasberg, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), penned and issued the order ruling the warrants were “not valid” on January 7, 2020. But it was not declassified and released until Thursday afternoon.

The judge ruled at least two of the four FISA applications against Carter Page—particularly the final two submitted in April and June of 2017—were unlawfully authorized.

“DOJ assesses that with respect to the applications in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679, ‘if not earlier, there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,’” Justice Boasberg wrote. “The Court understands the government to have concluded, in view of the material misstatements and omissions, that the Court’s authorizations in Docket Numbers 17-375 and 17-679 were not valid.”

Worth noting, Judge Boasberg noted that the court has not yet made a determination on the legality of the first two warrants.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz found seven “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in just the first of four total warrant applications. The latter three applications contained ten additional major inaccuracies.

In December, Judge Rosemary Collyer responded to the blistering report issued by the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG). She called the actions of the FBI “antithetical to the heightened duty of candor” owed to the court.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign targets abroad. It also created the FISC.

Supporters argued there were rigorous safeguards and robust restrictions on FISA. Critics argued the court served only as a rubber stamp. Of 1,080 requests in 2018, only one application was denied.

Mr. Page briefly served as a peripheral, unpaid foreign policy adviser to the campaign for Donald Trump. The FBI used him to conduct incidental surveillance against the then-Republican nominee and eventual president.

The unlawful application submitted on April 7 was personally signed by fired former FBI director James Comey, while the unlawful application on June 29 was signed by fired former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. 

The Justice Department admitted there was “insufficient

Republican Attorneys General Sent Legal Brief to U.S. Senate

A panoramic view of the United States (US) Capitol Building on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., USA. (Photo: AdobeStock)
A panoramic view of the United States (US) Capitol Building on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C., USA. (Photo: AdobeStock)

Washington, D.C.—Attorneys General of 21 states are urging the U.S. Senate to reject the “fundamentally flawed” impeachment articles against President Donald Trump, warning of a “dangerous historical precedent” that will “erode the separation of powers” between the executive and legislative branches.

All 21 Attorneys General are Republican and represent South Carolina, Louisiana, Utah, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

As Attorneys General of 21 States whose citizens and Electoral College delegates voted in the 2016 presidential election, we have a special duty to defend the integrity of the votes cast by those citizens and electors during that election. However, our interests go well beyond that particular election. This impeachment proceeding threatens all future elections and establishes a dangerous historical precedent. That new precedent will erode the separation of powers shared by the executive and legislative branches by subjugating future Presidents to the whims of the majority opposition party in the House of Representatives.

Attorneys General of: South Carolina, Louisiana, Utah, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, FloridaGeorgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia

In the 14-page legal brief (below) sent to the U.S. Senate, the Attorneys General argue both Articles I and II are “legally flawed” and “factually insufficient”. They further argue the partisan impeachment effort is motivated by the desire to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election and influence the 2020 presidential election.

The brief explicitly addresses each of the two articles, noting they fail to outline high crimes and misdemeanors. The Attorneys General also submitted an argument backed by primary sources surrounding the historical meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Attorneys General of 21 states urged the

Initial Claims Revised to Only 205K for Previous Week

The U.S. Labor Department (DOL) reported initial jobless claims rose 6,000 to just 211,000 for the week ending January 18, again beating the forecast. The previous week’s level was revised higher to just 205,000.

That’s the fourth forecast beat in a row and for the entire start of 2020.

Lagging Jobless Claims Data

U.S. initial jobless claims graph on a tablet screen. (Photo: AdobeStock)
U.S. initial jobless claims graph on a tablet screen. (Photo: AdobeStock)

The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was unchanged at a very low 1.2% for the week ending January 11.

The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during that week was 1,731,000, a decrease of 37,000. The previous week’s level was revised up 1,000 from 1,767,000 to 1,768,000.

The 4-week moving average was 1,757,750, an increase of just 2,000. The previous week’s average was revised up by 250 from 1,755,500 to 1,755,750.

No state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending January 4, the Labor Department said.

State Jobless Claims Data

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending January 4 were in Alaska (3.0), New Jersey (3.0), Connecticut (2.9), Pennsylvania (2.8), West Virginia (2.7), Montana (2.6), Rhode Island (2.6), Illinois (2.3), Iowa (2.3), and Minnesota (2.3).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending January 11 were in California (+15,273), Texas (+9,535), Missouri (+3,439), Florida (+2,244), and Arizona (+1,522), while the largest decreases were in New York (-21,532), Wisconsin (-4,599), South Carolina (-2,842), Connecticut (-1,866), and New Jersey (-1,856).

The U.S. Labor Department (DOL) reported initial

Single Family Existing Home Sales 10.6% Higher than Last Year

Existing home sales rose 3.6% in December after falling slightly in November, and are now 10.8% higher than one year ago (5.00 million in December 2018). The monthly housing market indicator beat the forecast.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported total existing home sales—defined as completed transactions for single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums and co-ops—increased to a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 5.54 million in December.

Forecasts ranged from a low of 5.370 million to a high of 5.500 million. The consensus forecast was 5.430 million.

File photo: A sold sign on an existing home. (Photo: AdobeStock)
File photo: A sold sign on an existing home. (Photo: AdobeStock)

On a full-year basis, total existing home sales closed out 2019 at 5.34 million, a level unchanged from 2018. Existing home sales in the South (+2.2%) offset declines in the West (-1.8%) and Midwest (-1.6%), while the Northeast remained unchanged.

“I view 2019 as a neutral year for housing in terms of sales,” Mr. Yun said. “Home sellers are positioned well, but prospective buyers aren’t as fortunate.”

“Low inventory remains a problem, with first-time buyers affected the most.”

The median existing home price for all housing types was $274,500 in December, an increase of 7.8% from December 2018 ($254,700). Prices rose in every region and November marks 94 straight months of year-over-year increases.

“Price appreciation has rapidly accelerated, and areas that are relatively unaffordable or declining in affordability are starting to experience slower job growth,” Mr. Yun added. “The hope is for price appreciation to slow in line with wage growth, which is about 3%.”

Total housing inventory at the end of December totaled 1.40 million units, down 14.6% from November and 8.5% from one year ago (1.53 million). Unsold inventory is now at a 3.0-month supply at the current sales pace, down from the 3.7-month supply in both November and December 2018.

The number of days properties typically remained on the market rose to 41 in December from 38 days in November, though that’s down from 46 days in December 2018. Forty-three percent (43%) of homes sold in December 2019 were on the market for less than a month.

While unsold inventory totals fell for seven consecutive months on a year-over-year basis, Mr. Yun argues the market for existing home sales is favorable to buyers and is expected to improve in 2020.

“We saw the year come to a close with the economy churning out 2.3 million jobs, mortgage rates below 4% and housing starts ramp up to 1.6 million on an annual basis,” he said. “If these factors are sustained in 2020, we will see a notable pickup in home sales in 2020.”

“NAR is expecting 2020 to be a great year for housing,” said NAR President Vince Malta, broker at Malta & Co., Inc., in San Francisco, California. “Our leadership team is hard at work to secure policies that will keep our housing market moving in the right direction, like promoting infrastructure reform, strengthening fair housing protections and ensuring mortgage capital remains available to responsible, mortgage-ready Americans.”

Existing Single-Family Home Sales

Single-family home sales came in at a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 4.92 million in December, up from 4.79 million in November and 10.6% higher than a year ago. The median existing single-family home price was $276,900 in December 2019, an increase of 8.0% from December 2018.

Regional Existing Home Sales

Existing home sales in the Northeast rose 5.7% to an annual rate of 740,000, up 8.8% from a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $304,400, up 7.4% from December 2018.

In the Midwest, existing home sales fell 1.5% to an annual rate of 1.30 million, though that’s still up 9.2% from a year ago. The median price in the Midwest was $208,500, also a 9.2% gain from last December.

Existing home sales in the South increased 5.4% to an annual rate of 2.36 million in December, jumping 12.4% higher than a year ago. The median price in the South was $240,500, a 6.7% increase from one year ago.

In the West, existing home sales gained 4.6% to an annual rate of 1.14 million in December, a 10.7% increase from a year ago. The median price in the West was $411,800, up 8.1% from December 2018.

Existing home sales rose 3.6% in December

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index (HPI) found U.S. house prices gained 0.2 in November, and 4.9% year-over-year. That’s the first time the HPI fell below a 5% annual rate since 2015.

The previously reported 0.2% increase for October 2019 was revised higher by two fold to 0.4%. Forecasts ranged from a low of 0.2% to a high of 0.4%. The consensus was 0.3%.

For the nine census divisions, seasonally adjusted monthly house price changes from October 2019 to November 2019 ranged from -0.1% in the Mountain division to +0.8% in the East North Central division.

The 12-month changes were all positive, ranging from +3.8% in the New England and the West South Central divisions to +6.3% in the Mountain division.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House

Day 1 Impeachment Trial: Chief Justice John Roberts Admonishes Both Sides

After a 12-hour first day in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the U.S. Senate approved rules that largely mirror the trial for Bill Clinton in 1999. The rules adopted were a victory for the White House

Debate ran into the middle of the night after Democrats proposed 11 amendments, all of which failed.

In what will undoubtedly be known as a historic moment, Chief Justice John Roberts admonished both the impeachment managers and the president’s defense team.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a Democrat impeachment manager, was speaking in support of the eighth amendment proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., which would’ve immediately subpoenaed former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

But Rep. Nadler proceeded to lecture the U.S. Senate, gearing his remarks more toward Democrats’ efforts to retake control of the upper chamber than to persuade those serving as jurors.

“The president is on trial in the Senate, but the Senate is on trial in the eyes of the American people. Will you vote to allow all the relevant evidence to be presented here? Or will you betray your pledge to be an impartial juror?

He accused U.S. Senators of being “complicit” in “the coverup”.

“So far I’m sad to say I see a lot of senators voting for a coverup, voting to deny witnesses, an absolutely indefensible vote, obviously a treacherous vote.”

“There were good reasons why all 100 senators agreed two decades ago that the Senate should not cross these bridges before we came to them,” Leader McConnell said. “We will not let the architects of the unfair House process convince the Senate to rewrite our rules just for President Trump.”

The president’s legal team unloaded on Rep. Nadler, who echoed insinuations made earlier by other Democrat impeachment managers.

“Mr. Nadler came up here and made false allegations against our team. He made false allegations against all of you,” Pat Cipollone said. “He accused you of a cover-up. He’s been making false allegations against the president. The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler is you, for the way you’ve addressed the United States Senate.”

“This is the United States Senate. You’re not in charge here,” he said. “It’s about time we bring this power trip in for a landing.”

At 1:30 AM EST, Democrats tried one last time to amend the rules proposed by Leader McConnell. Senator Schumer introduced an amendment that would’ve allowed Chief Justice Roberts to decide the appropriateness of witnesses.

Senate Republicans tabled the measure 53 to 47, arguing the U.S. Constitution grants the U.S. Senate the “sole” power over impeachment trials.

After a 12-hour first day in the

Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks to reporters demanding the unredacted version of the Mueller report on April 3, 2019.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, speaks to reporters demanding the unredacted version of the Mueller report on April 3, 2019.

As the impeachment moves to the U.S. Senate, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., stated, “In any trial, you call witnesses who have information about the charges. Hunter Biden has no information and is not a relevant witness.”

He added, “Any trial judge in this country would rule such a witness as irrelevant and inadmissible.” 

Rep. Nadler, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and impeachment manager, is using the standard of due process under the Constitution. Sounds fair, but there’s a common maxim about comparing apples with oranges. Though both are fruit, they taste completely different.

The current impeachment process is a mixed bag of rotten fruit. Impeachment is a political, not a legal process. Yet, Democrats continue to blend the two when it furthers their case.

President Trump is accused of abuse of power. The evidence is not based on the facts of wrongdoing, but rather the Democrats’ opinion of misconduct. Imagine an FBI agent approaches you and announces, “You’re under arrest.” Most innocent people would wonder, “What’d I do?” 

The indictment maintains that you engaged in a conversation with Fred, a colleague, and pressured him to commit a crime. The trial begins and the government introduces a tape—which they play repeatedly—while declaring your guilt. Your attorney assures you that the telephone conversation lacks any elements of a crime, but worries that the prosecution has many witnesses.

The government calls ten business associates who state that they “believe,” “feel,” “infer,” “theorize,” and “presume,” you are guilty. Not one witness could factually testify that you abused your power, but their feelings were accepted as fact. No trial judge would consider these witnesses relevant and would rule their testimony hearsay.

As a standard for due process, hearsay is considered gossip by teenagers in the high school cafeteria and not admissible. The Fifth Amendment also requires that any defendant be provided the opportunity to face their accuser.

None of these individuals are the accusers. They’re a bunch of anti-Trump tarot card gypsies with fancy titles and ideological agendas.

But Rep. Nadler’s standard for guilt changed once the impeachment inquiry reached the U.S. Senate, where he demanded only witnesses with relevant information.

The only relevant information, whether it be a criminal trial or an impeachment, is the conversation, itself. President Trump made no demand for a quid pro quo.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated unequivocally that President Trump neither requested nor implied that he investigate the Bidens or lose financial aid. Lacking that, the impeachment was simply based on a preconceived hatred of President Trump since Zelensky is the only direct relevant witness.

Any trial Judge in this country would announce a directed verdict of innocence based on a lack of evidence. But Reps. Adam Schiff, Nadler and Nancy Pelosi double down on their mind-reading act and proclaim, minus any evidence, that President Zelensky was lying.

It really didn’t matter what Presidents Trump and Zelensky discussed since the Democrats would’ve initiated an impeachment. Facts be damned.

To sum up this Shakespearean tragedy, the Democrats used a tape of a telephone conversation, which does not contain evidence of a crime. They discounted the statements of the two people on the call by allowing witnesses with no direct knowledge to express their opinions as facts. To bolster their non-existent case, they then accuse the only two fact witnesses—Presidents Trump and Zelensky—of lying.

Reps. Schiff and Nadler are now demanding that the Republican Senate call the Democrats’ witnesses. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumar is whining that “trials have witnesses, that’s what they’re all about…we need to know the facts from those in a position to know the facts …we must have relevant witnesses.”

Democrats are suddenly zealous proponents of relevant witnesses.

During the House impeachment inquiry, Rep. Schiff promised that Republicans would be able to call witnesses. But there was a catch. He had to approve the witness requests. The Republicans requested that Hunter Biden, Eric Ciaramella (the whistleblower), Nellie Ohr, Devon Archer (Burisma board member) and former Vice President Joe Biden, testify.

Rep. Schiff rejected every witness request.

Wes Fesle felt that, “fairness is man’s ability to rise above his prejudices.”

John Ligato, a retired FBI agent, is the author of five books, including his latest —> The Comey Gang: An Insider’s Look at an FBI in Crisis.

Impeachment is a political, not a legal

Clinton Refused to Say Whether She Would Endorse Bernie If He Wins Democratic Nomination

Bernie Sanders stands at the podium on stage during a walk through before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 25, 2016. (Photo: SS)
Bernie Sanders stands at the podium on stage during a walk through before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on July 25, 2016. (Photo: SS)

Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in an upcoming documentary, saying “nobody likes him” and that he’s “a career politician.” The failed 2016 nominee later refused to say whether she would endorse her former rival if he wins the 2020 Democratic nomination.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Lacey Rose read a quote attributed to Mrs. Clinton from the still unreleased documentary by Hulu about the 2016 campaign.

“In the doc, you’re brutally honest on Sanders: ‘He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.'”

“That assessment still hold?” Rose asked.

“Yes, it does,” Mrs. Clinton replied without delay.

In 2016, Bernie Sanders took a lot of criticism for endorsing Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. Many of his supporters gathered outside to protest what they believed to be him selling out the anti-elitism movement, and he was booed on stage during the DNC.

When asked about whether she would endorse or campaign for Senator Sanders if he wins the 2020 Democratic nomination, she refused to return the favor.

“I’m not going to go there yet. We’re still in a very vigorous primary season,” Mrs. Clinton said before attempting to further the narrative Sanders is anti-woman.

“I will say, however, that it’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a progressive rival for the nomination, planted a story in CNN claiming Senator Sanders told her he did not believe a woman could win the presidential election.

He vehemently denied the allegation.

“And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it,” Clinton added.

Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders in an

Martin Luther King Jr. and His Tactics Weren’t Widely Supported Before Assassination in 1968

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (Photo: U.S. National Archives in Washington)
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. (Photo: U.S. National Archives in Washington)

On Monday, Americans honor the memory of the peaceful civil rights leader who was born on January 15, 1929, and assassinated on April 4, 1968. While Martin Luther King Jr. is now universally revered, few know he was once widely unpopular.

He only became beloved after his death.

In the 1960s, Gallup gauged Dr. King’s image using a “scalometer” that asked the public to rate their views on him on a +5 to a -5 scale. The historical data show his image became decidedly more negative.

In 1963, Dr. King had a 41% positive and a 37% negative rating, a tenuous margin above water by just 4 points. In 1964, it was 43% positive and 39% negative, again only +4. In 1965, his rating was evenly divided at 45% positive and 45% negative.

Given the large percentages with no opinion, as well as the racial tension at the time, it is almost certain at least some of those negative views were silent.

In 1966—the last time Gallup used the scalometer to measure Martin Luther King Jr.’s image—it was overwhelmingly negative. Less than a third (32%) held a positive view, while 63% were negative. Gallup did not gauge Dr. King’s favorability rating in either 1967 or 1968.

As opposed to other civil rights activists, Dr. King argued for nonviolent action, including mass demonstrations, boycotts and acts of civil disobedience.

Americans praise him for those beliefs now, which he practiced until his assassination in 1969. But like their views on Dr. King, himself, they once held different views.

In 1961, Gallup asked Americans whether tactics such as “sit-ins” at lunch counters, “Freedom Buses” and other demonstrations helped or hurt the chances of racial integration in the South. More than half, at 57%, said they had hurt, while a little more than a quarter, at 27%, said they had helped.

Two years later in June 1963, shortly before the Dr. King’s August 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Gallup asked if “mass demonstrations” were more likely to help or more likely to HURT the cause for racial equality.

Sixty-percent (60%) said mass demonstrations hurt, while 27% believed they helped. Less than a year after Dr. King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech, 74% said these actions hurt and just 16% said they were helpful.

Obviously, Americans would later express more positive attitudes toward nonviolent demonstrations and Dr. King, himself. By May 1969, 63% said black Americans could win civil rights using nonviolent demonstrations.

In 1999, 49% of Americans said Mother Teresa was “one of the people I admire most” from the 20th century. Martin Luther King Jr. was second with 34%, ahead of John F. Kennedy, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill.

In life, he appeared on the Gallup Top 10 Most Admired List in 1964 (#4) and 1965 (#6).

You Might Also Like

Poll: Trump Approval Among Farmers Hits Record High

Martin Luther King Jr. is now universally

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial