Sens. Ossoff and Warnock Must Sever their Leo Frank Connection

Sens. Ossoff and Warnock Must Sever the Leo Frank Connection

Jews in America and particularly in the South have been energized by the election of Jon Ossoff to the Senate, the first Jew from Georgia to have that distinction. He was buoyed by the strong appeal to Black voters of fellow candidate the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who, as one commentator said, “had the coattails that delivered Ossoff’s win.” Their victories have given the Democrats a voting majority in the senate that, it is said, will remove legislative obstacles to the Biden agenda. The added benefit is the “rekindling” of the storied Black–Jewish alliance that some claim was the driver of the civil rights movement.

In their self-congratulatory euphoria Jews have promoted an entirely misleading narrative of a collegial history of Black–Jewish togetherness, commonality, and coalition that raises more eyebrows than smiles among rank-and-file Blacks who know better. Their melodramatic dreamscape often casts Ossoff as the second coming of another Jewish Georgian named Leo Frank, the B’nai B’rith president who was convicted of the 1913 murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, one of the many Gentile child laborers at the Jewish-owned Atlanta pencil factory he managed. The murder led to Frank’s trial, conviction, and his ultimate lynching, which is said to be the “worst incidence of anti-Semitism in American history.” The Ossoff cheerleaders have posed the 2021 election of a Jew as a “new era” in race relations that finally “heals the wounds” of Southern Jews who have lived under the pain of the Leo Frank affair for more than a century. Moment magazine’s slant is typical of that sentiment: “The wolves of hate had hunted Black and Jewish Georgians for too long. In 1915, the lynching of Jewish-American Leo Frank…gave way to a resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan.”

Georgia Jewish slave trader Leah Minis

But the Jewish rehashing of the Leo Frank case is simply a cunning corruption of an unfortunate history: raising Leo Frank from the dead may be therapeutic but it also whitewashes a history of Jewish racial treachery in the South that Blacks—and especially Sen. Warnock—should “Never Forget.”

Georgia Jewish slave trader Levi Shetfall

Jews and Black slavery have been connected in Georgia since its earliest colonial settlement in the 1700s. Jews had enjoyed a full freedom in the colony, but abandoned the place, according to historian Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus, because “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.” When the colony’s leaders relented and permitted slavery, Jews returned and bought, sold, and worked enslaved Africans without reservation. Every one of the founders of Georgia’s Jewish community was a slave owner and they regularly placed advertisements in Georgia newspapers seeking to buy and sell human beings and soliciting help hunting down freedom-seeking “runaways.” For nearly two centuries Blacks and Jews in Georgia had a relationship, but it was no “coalition.” According to Steven Hertzberg, “There is little evidence to suggest that any of Atlanta’s Jews desired a greater amelioration in the condition of blacks”; rather, they “clearly benefited from the system of white supremacy.”

By the time of the trial of Leo Frank for the rape and murder of Mary Phagan in 1913, Jews had grown wealthy and satisfied with profits they derived from the slavery and Jim Crow systems, and they saw Blacks as no more than menial laborers and domestic servants. Atlanta industrialist and Chamber of Commerce official Oscar Pappenheimer was also one of the owners of the National Pencil Company, where Leo Frank committed the murder. In 1906, Pappenheimer actually wrote to the Atlanta Constitution to make a “practical suggestion” for “negroes”:

Georgia Jewish slave traders Mayer & Jacobe.

“I propose the registration of negroes in the southern states 14 years of age and more….Each person so registered should possess…a certificate…in which should be entered description, date and place of birth and, at each registration, record of abode, employment, conduct and reference….[T]hese certificates would before long be of great value to industrious, well-behaved people. Let others decide whether it be legal to pass laws bearing on this subject with reference to the colored race only…”

Pappenheimer’s “suggestion” was nearly identical to that which Adolf Hitler enforced against Jews thirty years later. This overt and public race hate from such a prominent member of Atlanta’s Jewish elite represents the racial mentality of the Jews of the South at the time of the Leo Frank case.

The actual racial history of Jews helps us to understand why it was so easy for them to go to such great lengths to pin the Phagan murder on a Black man—indeed, two Black men! They claim that the “real killer” was a Black man named James Conley, a sweeper at the factory, but the ugly reality is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to Leo Frank as the murderer of Mary Phagan.

First, when Frank was suspected of the crime, the wealthy Jewish owners of the pencil factory immediately hired the best attorneys as well as two of the most prominent American private detective firms—the Pinkerton and Burns agencies—to investigate the murder. Both agencies concluded exactly what the Atlanta police had found—that Leo Frank was the murderer of Little Mary Phagan. Frank was indicted by a grand jury that included five Jews, some being prominent members of Frank’s own synagogue.

In fact, Atlanta police began to suspect Frank because a strange series of “clues” popped up that appeared to point to a Black employee of Frank’s named Newt Lee, a night watchman at the factory who had discovered the girl’s body hidden in the basement. Police officers found that “evidence” had been planted to frame Lee and that attorneys and private security personnel working for Frank were the likely culprits. Frank produced Lee’s factory timecard that was obviously and suspiciously altered to show that Lee had time to commit the crime. Only Frank could have engineered that clumsy caper and it fooled no one. Next, police searched Lee’s home and found a bloody shirt in his laundry bin—but it was right after being told by Frank’s attorneys that “evidence” might be found there. The bloody shirt episode became the single incident that solidified police suspicion of the pencil factory manager, and the police arrested Frank and charged him with murder. And the Black man he tried to frame, Newt Lee, became a solid witness for the prosecution in the murder trial.


Leo Frank’s History of Racist Hate

As the president of the Atlanta chapter of the Jewish organization B’nai B’rith, Leo Frank was arguably the most important Jewish leader in the South. And so his exoneration became a matter of Jewish national security. Such a high-ranking Jew on trial for the shocking murder of a Gentile child, Jews believed, would be too harmful a burden for American Jews. In 1913, the group’s Anti-Defamation League had just been formed in Chicago and they were seeking a way to heighten publicity and donations for their cause. Such ulterior Jewish motives seem to have blinded many Jews to the actual facts of the murder and the surrounding issues that led Frank’s own detectives to accuse him of such a heinous crime.

The physical and circumstantial evidence all pointed unfailingly to Frank and even the ADL’s own expert, Steve Oney, had to admit, “I think there was a reasonable case against Leo Frank.” So “anti-Semitism” was not the driver of Frank’s prosecution. And as the case against him mounted, Frank made a fateful and hateful decision that his defense against the murder charge would be pure unadulterated anti-Black racism.

Frank publicly and openly referred to Blacks as “niggers.” His defense attorneys used the word “nigger” and other racist slurs dozens of times in court. His main attorney attempted to impeach the damning testimony of Black witnesses by telling the jury: “If you put a nigger in a hopper, he’ll drip lies.” One Black witness, Frank’s lawyers told the jury, “is a plain, beastly, ragged, filthy, lying nigger” who came from “a law-breaking race.”

The defense attorneys tried to explain away the planted bloody shirt incident but only exposed just how deep in the gutter they were willing to go. Luther Rosser was questioning the medical examiner on the witness stand:

Rosser: The shirt had the odor of blood on it when you first got it, didn’t it?


Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of nigger?


Rosser: Then, if a nigger had just put on his shirt and had taken it off in an instant, your nose would “get him”?

Have you ever smelled a negro, Mr. Rosser?

Rosser: More than you ever smelled. I was smelling them before you were born.

Frank’s legal team argued in court (and long after) that Blacks should not be believed—simply because they were Black—and that “negro testimony” was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Leo Frank argued that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus, as a white man, he could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan. And those arguments—which would have horrified Martin Luther King—were not simply trial gaffes or personal opinions: the national Jewish leadership campaigned for two years after Frank’s conviction using those profoundly racist “arguments” as their legal strategy.


Leo Frank: The Harvey Weinstein of Atlanta

But the testimony of Black witnesses was not Frank’s only problem. The National Pencil Company was filled with young women and girls—child laborers working long hours at starvation wages. It seems that Frank had a Harvey-Weinstein-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-like habit of pressuring these vulnerable girls into sexual situations. One hundred years before the #MeToo revolution twenty of the young female factory employees swore under oath to the sexual harassment they suffered at the “lascivious” hands of Leo Frank. They testified that Frank ogled them, brushed up against them, touched their breasts, made lewd and suggestive remarks, and invaded their dressing room without knocking. Their testimony was so powerful that none of Frank’s attorneys dared to cross-examine them—not one. A white man confessed that he and Frank brought women to and had alcohol in the factory after hours.

Eight of the TWENTY #MeToo girls and young women who testified under oath of the “lascivious character” of Leo Frank.

Later, the Jewish advertising magnate who financed Frank’s many legal appeals, Albert Lasker, admitted that after he and colleagues met the B’nai B’rith president for the very first time: “It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he impressed us as a sexual pervert.” Little Mary Phagan, it was proven in court, had mightily resisted Frank’s sexual advances before being knocked unconscious and then strangled.

Of course, none of this Jewish race hate and sexual violence made it into the voluminous Leo Frank literature. But that has changed. The Nation of Islam’s The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume Three: The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man is a 536-page study referenced with thousands of footnotes and illustrated with maps, diagrams, and graphics that touch on every aspect of this controversial case. And though it was received enthusiastically by scholars of the case, it was banned from being sold on in 2019. Ron Unz offered his view that “It honestly seemed like one of the most thorough and detailed studies of a controversial historical event I’ve ever read, far superior to even the vast majority of top academic works.”

The great niece of the murdered girl is also named after her great aunt. Mary Phagan-Kean has studied the case for years. She wrote a book on the subject titled The Murder of Little Mary Phagan and maintained that Leo Frank was in fact the murderer and that to ignore the mountains of damning evidence is a calumny against her family and the cause of justice. Mrs. Phagan-Kean has endorsed the findings of the Nation of Islam:

“Nation of Islam volume is the most well-researched book published regarding the rape and murder of little Mary Phagan to date. The Phagan family appreciates the detail Nation of Islam brought to the case analysis.”

Those who can find something redeemable in the Leo Frank legend must necessarily ignore the Jewish racism and sexual violence that permeated the case. And that is just the beginning. The history of Jewish racism goes well beyond the Frank case—it was at the core of Jewish life in Atlanta, in Georgia, and throughout the South.

Before Rev. Warnock’s impressive senate victory he had aligned himself with a Jewish man of great character when he said:

“The Nation of Islam is significant….Its voice has been important even for the development of Black theology, because it was the Black Muslims who challenged Black preachers and said that ‘you’re promulgating … the white man’s religion. That’s a slave religion. You’re telling people to focus on heaven; meanwhile, they’re catching hell.’ And so we’ve needed the witness of the Nation of Islam, in a real sense, to put a fire under us and keep us honest about the meaning of the proclamation coming from our pulpits.” (See video below)

Bro. Warnock may not have known it at the time of his stated “significance” of the Nation of Islam but his 2013 analysis mirrors the testimony of the civil rights martyr Andrew Goodman, who was killed in the battle for justice along with James Chaney and Michael Schwerner. Goodman thoughtfully wrote:

…it is true that the white man (and by this I mean Christian civilization in general) has proved himself to be the most depraved devil imaginable in his attitudes towards the Negro race….The source and cause of this need for reaction  can be attributed to white contempt and neglect. The historical contempt that the white race held for the Negroes has created a group of rootless degraded people. The current neglect of the problem can only irritate this deplorable state of affairs. The Black Muslims should constitute a warning to our society, a warning that must be heeded if we are to preserve the society. The road to freedom must be uphill, even if it is arduous and frustrating.  A people must have dignity and identity. If they can’t do it peacefully, they will do it defensively.” 

Rep. John Lewis—as did Rev. Warnock and Andrew Goodman—understood the significance of the Nation of Islam.

Senator Warnock’s witness of the Nation of Islam and the ultimate sacrifice of Andrew Goodman proves that his role models for leadership are solid and enduring. If there ever was a Black-Jewish coalition, Goodman—a very good man—was at the core. In today’s moment of great trauma and division leaders of great moral and intellectual character are desperately needed to correct a nation and a world on the brink of collapse.

Both Sens. Ossoff and Warnock, and nearly all of the unsuspecting public, have been brutally hoodwinked by a disingenuous Jewish leadership that has chosen to make Leo Frank—an unrepentant race hater, child rapist and murderer—into a Jesus figure for the Jewish people. If Jon Ossoff and the Jewish world choose to take Leo Frank as their model of racial climate change—as many Jews have demanded they do— Bro. Warnock and his Black supporters should shake Ossoff off his coattails and sprint in the opposite direction.


UPCOMING: Part 2: Before Leo Frank: The Secret Relationship Between Georgia’s Blacks and Jews

Listen to the audiobook produced by the American Mercury of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks & Jews, Vol. 3: Leo Frank: The Lynching of a Guilty Man:

Now an Audio Book: The Leo Frank Case: The Lynching of a Guilty Man, part 1


The Rev. Raphael Warnock’s statement on the significance of the Nation of Islam:



Leo Frank and PARADE: A Jewish Fairy Tale Gone Bad


When Alfred Uhry’s play Parade opened in Chicago this week (May 24 – July 2), its audience was told they would be watching a historical drama. The Chicago Tribune claimed that Parade is telling “a true story of a man falsely accused of murder.” That man is Leo Frank. He was a Jewish pencil factory manager and B’nai B’rith leader in Atlanta who was convicted of the 1913 murder of one of his employees, a 13-year-old gentile girl named Mary Phagan. Frank was ultimately imprisoned and then lynched in 1915, the only Jew ever lynched in America, it is claimed. As the Tribune suggests, many Jews for a century have believed Frank to be the innocent victim of “anti-Semitism,” and the play Parade dramatizes that belief.

“Parade” is a strange title for a play about two horrific murders. In choosing that title, playwright Alfred Uhry was referring to the big event that was underway on April 26, 1913—the last day of Mary Phagan’s young life. It was Confederate Memorial Day and a parade of old rebel soldiers was moving through Atlanta’s main thoroughfares. But in the context of today’s cultural politics, Parade is really about Jewish mythmakers forcing Americans onto the proverbial bandwagon and into believing a deeply troubling fairy tale concocted to give cover to one of the most racist episodes in Black history.

At best, it is a troubling oversight that Uhry and the play’s producers seem to be unaware of the seamier details of this highly racialized case. At worst, they have chosen to ignore how a viciously racist Leo Frank used both immoral and illegal tactics in his effort to avoid prosecution for a heinous crime of which he is most certainly guilty. The details of this “new” assessment are contained in the new Nation of Islam book The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case, which represents the first time Black scholars have examined the case.

The findings in the book are devastating to the long-accepted narrative of Frank’s victimhood and put Uhry’s Parade squarely in the realm of anti-Black racial propaganda—classed with the notorious 1915 Ku Klux Klan recruitment film Birth of a Nation. It now appears that Leo Frank’s misfortune was quickly seen by Jewish leaders as an invaluable propaganda tool by which an invented history of Jewish oppression in America could be forged. Further, the book consults long-lost interviews and rare documents that reveal that some of Frank’s most ardent Jewish supporters not only were repelled by Frank’s abrasive personality but also believed he was in fact the murderer of Mary Phagan. They felt that if the murder conviction of such a high-ranking Jewish leader were allowed to stand, the image of the Jewish community would be dealt a severe blow. The combination of this fear and opportunism motivated the Jewish leadership to take on Frank’s case as a major cause célèbre. So Uhry’s Parade has little to do with the facts of the case: the play is instead crafted to maintain a 100-year fantasy and to satisfy a powerful Jewish community that insists on a sanitized view of their history for public consumption.

Of course, Jews can believe in anything they wish to believe in. Blacks, however, must be extremely cautious about being unwitting servants to this massive Leo Frank illusion. They must never forget that this myth does not exist in a racial vacuum. As the popular story goes, Leo Frank was “wrongfully convicted” for the murder of a defenseless child—but those who have worked unceasingly to exonerate the Jewish man have worked equally hard to pin this heinous crime on a Black man! And that brings this case into the realm of Black history, demanding serious Black analysis. For 100 years the name of James “Jim” Conley has been scapegoated in nearly all the Jewish-produced literature on the case. He was a janitor in the factory on the day of the murder, and he admits to being called by his boss Leo Frank to help move the girl’s body, and he admits to being sworn to secrecy. But later Frank and his supporters moved to pin the entire crime on Conley. Uhry’s Parade casts the Black man as a devious criminal who gets away with murder. Why Black scholars have not been motivated to interrogate this incredible injustice is a 100-year mystery.


Made household names of Lucky Strikes, Chanel, Pepsodent, Kotex, Quaker Oats,  Kleenex, Palmolive, Sunkist, Goodyear, and Budweiser.

Albert Lasker’s Nefarious Role

We might start with Leo Frank’s most significant supporter and sponsor—a man who is mysteriously absent from Uhry’s Parade script. Chicago icon Albert Lasker is considered the “father of modern advertising,” whose wide-ranging legacy credits him with being the inventor of the soap opera and with changing the name of America’s eugenicists—the cult that inspired the racial purification philosophy of Hitler—to the much more user-friendly “Planned Parenthood.” He was an early owner of the Chicago Cubs, and as a philanthropist gave all his life to Jewish causes. When Lasker heard of the Leo Frank case, the B’nai B’rith leader had already been convicted of the murder. It was Lasker who financed all of Frank’s post-conviction appeals and orchestrated his international public-relations campaign. Lasker contacted a prominent publisher and a private detective and all went to Atlanta to meet the man they would spend the next two years trying to liberate. Lasker recalled the meeting in Frank’s jail cell:

“It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Leo Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert. Now, he may not have been—or rather a homeosexual [sic] or something like that…”

According to Lasker’s biographer, the men with him during that encounter took “a violent dislike to him [Frank].” Lasker “hated him,” and said, “I hope he [Frank] gets out…and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.

This harsh and condemnatory assessment of the man who would become a Jewish civil rights icon is shocking. Leo Frank impressed his most ardent Jewish supporters and the leading champions of his cause as “a sexual pervert,” who they hoped would die!

Now, how should Blacks view the man who they are told suffered for the crime of a Black man? Frank’s own thinking is reflected in an Atlanta Constitution front-page headline on May 31, 1913: “Mary Phagan’s Murder Was Work of a Negro Declares Leo M. Frank.” The newspaper quoted the B’nai B’rith leader as he sat in jail awaiting his murder trial:

“Here is a negro, not alone with the shiftless and lying habits of an element of his race, that is common to the South….No white man killed Mary Phagan. It’s a negro’s crime, through and through. No man with common sense would even suspect I did it.”

The Jewish leader—today heralded as a civil rights icon—publicly argued that murder, being a “negro crime,” could not have been committed by him, a white man. That was Leo Frank’s defense! Further, he argued, the Blacks who testified against him could not be believed because they were negroes. At trial Frank’s attorney upbraided the all-white jury, who found the testimony of the Black witnesses far more logical and believable than his Jewish client’s story:

“They would rather believe the negro’s word….Oh, how times have changed. I hope to God I die before they change any worse than this…”

Private eye William J. Burns planted “evidence” and bribed witnesses for Leo Frank. His own detectives publicly stated Frank was the murderer.

Leo Frank hoped that his appeal to pure white racism would get him acquitted, but Albert Lasker knew that the evidence that convicted him was damning. He hired a private eye named William J. Burns to plant “evidence” and to bribe witnesses. That tactic backfired so badly that it actually fueled the outrage in Georgia that led to Frank’s lynching. Years later Lasker confessed that Burns “put in” so “much perjured stuff…until it embarrassed our case at times.”

You won’t find any of this in Alfred Uhry’s Parade, but it can all be found, well referenced, in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3: The Leo Frank Case. Blacks have passively accepted a patently false version of history and have allowed themselves to be puppets for Uhry’s production, agents of an odious Jewish propaganda. Parade is the very worst in a long line of racist assaults on truth itself. Just as Lasker and Burns had to fabricate an alibi for Frank, Uhry has put his own mendacious words in the mouths of Parade’s Black characters, slandering James Conley in the most wicked way. But in 1913, James Conley represented his own humanity with an inner strength and dignity that Leo Frank could only achieve via Uhry’s racist imagination:

“I know I will be either hanged or get a life sentence, but I am prepared to take my medicine. I wrote the notes and I helped carry the body to the basement, and I know they can punish me for that. When the judge calls me up before him I am going to ask him not to ask me any questions, but to simply sentence me. If it’s to hang, I’ll stick to my story; and if it’s life imprisonment, there’ll be no change. It makes no difference what the sentence is, I’ll have nothing to add and nothing to take away from the statement I made to the detectives…”
It is THAT James Conley that must speak today. Parade’s Black actors must INSIST that the real words of Leo Frank, Albert Lasker, and James Conley be reflected, lest they be viewed as complicit agents of racist propaganda. The choice is theirs.


Two articles on Leo Frank and PARADE:


A Jewish Civil Rights Icon Frames a Black Man for Murder

The racial history of Georgia is fraught with blood-curdling violence and the utter extremes of white supremacy. Native genocide, African slavery, sharecropping, Jim Crow, lynching, KKK terrorism, and state-sponsored oppression were not only practiced there—they are at the existential root of Georgia itself. Black people can safely say the state motto—“Wisdom, Justice, Moderation”—is hypocrisy.

Source: Jews Selling Blacks: Slave-Sale Advertising by American Jews

Jewish people claim that they shared victimhood with Blacks throughout Georgia history. But in order to make that claim they ignore the extensive Jewish slave trading, such as that of Leah Minis, who was publicly advertising “Sundry Negro Slaves in families” in 1795, or that of Israel Keiffer, who in 1781 was selling “some Negroes, Cattle, and Household furniture,” “property” of the late co-religionist Solomon Zantz. They must ignore the mass Jewish exodus from Georgia in 1740, which occurred not to escape some anti-Semitic violence but, according to Rabbi Dr. Jacob Rader Marcus, to protest that “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.” You read right. When Georgia decided to ban slavery, the Jews booked it to find a slave state. They only returned when African slavery was reinstated nine years later.

Source: Jews Selling Blacks: Slave-Sale Advertising by American Jews

To make the case that they have kinship with Blacks in suffering the worst of white American racism, Jews point to a single event—the 1915 lynching of the convicted murderer of a young gentile girl, Jewish leader Leo Frank, who was killed after being snatched from a Georgia prison cell. Based on this one event Jews have claimed a historical oppression equal to that of Blacks, and Leo Frank has been given a sacred martyrdom status in the history of Jews in the Black civil rights movement.


A new book by the Nation of Islam delves deeply into the Leo Frank case to meticulously examine this little-known history. Of the dozen or more books and thousands of articles written about this most significant case, it turns out that, strangely, none of those studies are by Black scholars. And the Jewish writers have routinely evaded the extraordinary involvement of Blacks in the case and how they were used and abused in the legal process that led to Leo Frank’s murder conviction. The 536-page book on the Leo Frank case by the Nation of Islam is titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3, The Leo Frank Case, and it reveals in graphic detail that the B’nai B’rith leader Leo Frank and his Jewish supporters were no civil rights crusaders: they were staunch proponents of white supremacy and true believers in the racist status quo.


Leo Frank Frames a Black Man for Murder

The trial of Leo Frank for the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan was a veritable cesspool of racism—not by the Georgia prosecutors of Leo Frank, but by Leo Frank and his hired defense team! One of the ugliest examples of Jewish racism commenced just hours after the murder. The man who discovered the body in the basement of Leo Frank’s pencil factory was Leo Frank’s employee, the Black night watchman named Newt Lee. Though it was Lee who alerted police to the grisly scene in the early morning hours of April 27th 1913, the police immediately arrested and jailed him, for no other reason than the arrest of the nearest Black person was a long-established American tradition.

But Frank also found himself under suspicion after police noticed that he was unusually nervous and trembling and that the statements he gave to investigators were, to them, less than candid.  One of scores of child employees at the factory, Mary Phagan had come to meet Frank to get her pay, and he admitted to being the last person to see her alive. Leo Frank sensed that police had their suspicions of him, but as the leader of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith organization he had the wealth and connections to obtain the most expensive lawyers and private investigators. And once his legal team was assembled, they seem to have been working zealously and illegally to deflect suspicion away from their client Leo Frank.

Civil Rights Icon Leo Frank and murder victim Mary Phagan

While Newt Lee sat chained in jail, and with the newspapers stoking a lynch-mob fervor against him, someone broke into Lee’s home, found a shirt of his, smeared it with blood, and placed it in his clothes hamper. At the very same time, Frank’s lawyer and fellow B’nai B’rith member Herbert Haas was “informing” police where they might be able to find that damning “evidence” against Lee. But Haas handled his part of the “frame-up” so poorly that police immediately suspected the bloody shirt to be “planted” evidence. The shirt appeared newly washed and not to have been worn at all, and it had been smeared with blood as if someone had used it to wipe a table. Worse, police confirmed that Lee, who was then sitting handcuffed in jail, was still wearing the shirt he had on on the day of the murder.

Further tying this botched scheme to Leo Frank was the simultaneous discovery that Frank had altered his night watchman’s factory timecard to indicate that Lee could have committed the crime. The front page of the April 30th edition (“Extra No. 8”) of the Georgian is titled “SUSPICION LIFTS FROM FRANK; MAY BE FREED,” and quotes detectives: “We now have enough evidence to convict Newt Lee.” Most troubling is the following passage:

Additional clews furnished by the head of the pencil factory were responsible for the closing net around the negro watchman…what suspicion had rested on Frank was being rapidly swept away by the damaging evidence against the black man. It was announced that he [Frank] probably would be liberated tonight or in the morning.”

Atlanta Chief of Detectives Newport Lanford declared to reporters that somebody was blocking the Phagan investigation, silencing witnesses, and ‘planting’ evidence. Chief Lanford understood—as did everyone else following the sensational case—that only one person, Leo Frank, could benefit from these actions against the poor Black night watchman. And it was only Frank who had the resources to mount such an operation.

Frank’s botched attempt to frame his Black employee was actually the final straw for police, who then concluded that Leo Frank was the likely murderer. They arrested him, and a grand jury with five Jewish members indicted Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan. The “bloody shirt” incident came up at the trial and was one of the strongest pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution.


Leo Frank’s Racism on Trial

Tampering with, falsifying, and altering evidence are bad enough—indeed, they are all felonies—but when confronted with their crimes at his trial, Frank’s team doubled down and dove even deeper into the mud. His main trial attorney was the South’s premier advocate, the famed Luther Rosser, and in open court he had this incredible exchange with an expert witness who testified that the bloody shirt had indeed been planted at Newt Lee’s home:

Rosser: The shirt had the odor of blood on it when you first got it, didn’t it?

A. Yes.

Rosser: Then, wouldn’t the odor of blood have killed the odor of “nigger”?

A. No.

Rosser: Then, if a nigger had just put on his shirt and had taken it off in an instant, your nose would “get him”?

A. Have you ever smelled a negro, Mr. Rosser?

Rosser: More than you ever smelled. I was smelling them before you were born.

Jewish civil rights icon Leo Frank sat nodding approvingly at his attorney’s cross-examination prowess. For, though Rosser was no closer to rebutting the damning evidence against his client for the serious crimes of rape and murder, he had indeed established himself as the resident authority on the smell of niggers. And so a budding Black-Jewish relationship, which could have held out the promise of equal opportunity, racial brotherhood, and civil rights, collapsed like a 9-11 controlled demolition.


Notwithstanding this bizarre and grotesque trial tactic, Newt Lee testified in such a strong, truthful, and dignified manner that even the all-white jury could not be convinced that Lee had committed any crime at all. But that did not deter the Frank team, which argued in court that Lee, and the many Black witnesses that testified, should not be believed—simply because they were Black. “Negro testimony,” they insisted, was by definition inferior and unreliable. Further, Frank advanced the notion to the court that murder, rape, and robbery were “negro crimes” and thus by definition a white man (like him) could not have committed the murder of Mary Phagan.

Of course, had the Georgia prosecutors pursued an “odor of Jew/Jew testimony/Jewish crime” attack against Frank, such an outrage would ring from every American history book as the very best proof of American “anti-Semitism” in its rudest form. Instead, Leo Frank—a Jewish racist—is “credited” with being the founding father of  the Anti-Defamation League and the Black-Jewish relationship

Today, of the many studies of the case, all have concealed the anti-Black racism of Leo Frank and his supporters. Journalist Steve Oney is the ADL expert on the case. He penned a book of 742 pages yet avoids this “smell-of-nigger” exchange altogether. A stage play by Alfred Uhry titled Parade, which is now touring America, ignores and whitewashes these seedy features of Leo Frank’s alleged civil rights résumé.

All of this hidden history is revealed in unprecedented detail in the pages of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3. What’s more, the attempted framing of a Black man—a framing that Leo Frank had hoped would result in the innocent man’s lynching—is just one of many incidents of racism committed by Leo Frank and his representatives as he tried desperately to free himself from the charge of rape and murder, at the expense of an innocent Black life.

The Jewish role in the early civil rights movement has always been taken for granted as having a strong foundation in truth. Now that Black scholars have conducted a rigorous investigation of the Leo Frank case, the Jewish role in the Black struggle must be seriously revisited, uncovered, and exposed.

See the banned video at

Jewish Forward Takes on Leo Frank Mythology

Notice recruiting Black actors to perform roles in Parade.


Ms. Aimee Levitt’s recent article in the Forward asks the provocative question, “Was Leo Frank A Case Of Jews Playing The Jew Card?

The Forward is responding to a series of three articles by the Nation of Islam Research Group questioning the authenticity of the Alfred Uhry musical Parade, which has been performed in theaters across America. Blacks would know Uhry as the writer of the insulting uncle tom drama Driving Miss Daisy. Parade is based on the alleged anti-Semitic prosecution of Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old gentile girl who worked at the factory that Frank managed. Frank was lynched in 1915, and his case is considered the worst incident of anti-Semitism in American history. Mr. Uhry’s play Parade promotes the idea that Frank was innocent of the murder and that a Black man named James Conley was the real assailant, who then schemed with Georgia authorities to persecute “the Jew.”

A new book by the Nation of Islam titled The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3—the first book about the case written by Black scholarscompellingly argues that a true analysis of the evidence shows that Frank was in fact guilty and that Jewish leaders know this but are exploiting the case to claim a victimhood in America for their own political advantage. Thus, Uhry’s musical Parade is a flagrant example of Jews playing the “Jew Card.”

To Ms. Levitt’s credit she has consulted two Jewish scholars who have written books on the case: Dr. Jeffrey Melnick and journalist Steven Oney, the latter being the Anti-Defamation League’s resident expert on the case. Inexplicably, Levitt chose to avoid any of the points presented in the three articles that prove that Parade is far more propaganda than fact. The articles can be found at the following links:

Playwright and race propagandist Alfred Uhry.




In the Forward article, Dr. Melnick begins his comments with a surprising admission: “I’m clearly in a strange position of agreeing with a lot of what the Nation of Islam has to say…” In fact, Melnick was asked directly in 2010 whether he felt Frank was really guilty. He answered, “I studied all I could and I can’t figure it out still.” Steve Oney’s 2003 book on the Frank case has the distinction of being probably the only book written in the 21st century that still uses the words “Negro” and Negress throughout its pages to refer to Black people. In 2013 Oney wrote: “I think there was a reasonable case against Leo Frank.” Those statements by Ms. Levitt’s scholars effectively throw into question the claim that Frank’s ordeal was based on “anti-Semitism” and not the damning evidence found at the scene of that horrific crime.

Steve Oney, author of And the Dead Shall Rise.

Levitt’s article is titled “Musical Sparks Fresh Tensions With Blacks Over Infamous Leo Frank Case.” But the “tensions” Ms. Levitt refers to are not even between Blacks and Jews—they are between the Jewish ADL and their own expert on the case, Steve Oney. Levitt can today find on the ADL’s own website the claim that a violent anti-Semitic mob gathered outside the Atlanta courtroom chanting, Hang the Jew, Hang the Jew. Scores of Jewish authorities, including Alan Dershowitz and ADL leaders Abraham Foxman and Jonathan Greenblatt, have promoted this claim as proof of anti-Jewish bigotry. But Oney told the Jewish Journal:

“It didn’t happen….Jews were accepted in the city, and the record does not substantiate subsequent reports that the crowd outside the courtroom shouted at the jurors: ‘Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you.’”

Of the men who lynched Frank, Oney writes that they “were motivated by neither bloodlust nor anti-Semitism.” Ms. Levitt might care to referee that serious internecine conflict amongst Jews.

Dr. Jeffrey Melnick, author of Black–Jewish Relations on Trial: Leo Frank and Jim Conley in the New South

Levitt accurately points out that her paper’s own founder, Abraham Cahan, went to Atlanta in 1913 to interview Frank in jail. She should have revealed that Cahan quoted Frank himself:

“Anti-Semitism is absolutely not the reason for this libel [murder conviction] that has been framed against me. It isn’t the source nor the result of this sad story.”

Frank’s wife Lucille, according to Cahan, “supported her husband’s claim.”

So where does this leave those involved in the production of Alfred Uhry’s Parade?

Jews, of course, are welcome to promote any mythology about themselves that they care to. That’s why they set up Hollywood. But Black actors should seriously consider whether they still want to be Driving Miss Daisy for Alfred Uhry, promoting anti-Black bigotry in the form of entertainment. Whilst Steve Oney has dismantled the core of the “anti-Semitism” charge, it CAN NOT be refuted that Leo Frank and his Jewish defenders launched one of the most racist trial defenses in American history—and that is the central argument in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 3.

Should Blacks ignore the fact that agents working for Leo Frank planted a bloody shirt at the home of a Black man named Newt Lee, in an attempt to frame him for the murder of Mary Phagan? Should we ignore that the main argument of Franks trial defense was that he could not have done it because murder is a “negro crime”? In open court his attorneys made such statements as “Don’t you know a nigger never had sausage on the table without eating it?” The Jewish defendant himself, now promoted as a civil rights icon, referred to Blacks as “niggers” without reservation. Dozens of young women testified that Frank harassed them on the job seeking sexual favors. He used the labor of gentile children and worked them long hours, whilst Atlantas Jewish children were attending the best schools in the city; and his factory jobs were segregated by race, with a “negro toilet” in the basement.

Should not Parade actors know that both of Frank’s hired private detectives concluded that Frank was guilty? Should the Parade audience be informed that according to the ADL, there were five Jewish members of the grand jury who voted to indict Frank for murder? Should they know that Frank’s main supporter Albert Lasker said that Frank “impressed us as a sexual pervert…”? And though he spent nearly $3 million in todays dollars on Frank’s behalf, should not Jews be apprised that Lasker privately expressed serious doubts about Frank’s innocence? Should Jewish people who suffered under Hitler know that Franks main appeals attorney, Louis Marshall, was also the “main legal advisor” for the eugenics movements American Breeders Association?

All this and much more is revealed in the 536-page Nation of Islam book, and backed by 1,227 footnotes.

Blacks must be made aware that the Leo Frank case has been used as a ploy to hide a much uglier BlackJewish truth. Brandeis professor of Jewish studies Jonathan Sarna recently confirmed that before the Leo Frank case, Jews had no history of being oppressed in America. Dr. Sarna wrote that if the United States “has not been utter heaven for Jews, it has been as far from hell as Jews in the Diaspora have ever known.” The fact is that Jews in America have a long history of making America a hell for Blacks. Dr. Abraham Peck, at the American Jewish Archives, was unmistakably clear:

“The first two centuries of the Black–Jewish encounter in America were highlighted by a fairly extensive record of Jewish slave-holding. Indeed, during the colonial period, in the small Jewish community of the time, almost every Jewish household of any form, North or South, possessed at least one slave.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia reveals the surprising fact that

[T]he cotton-plantations in many parts of the South were wholly in the hands of the Jews, and as a consequence slavery found its advocates among them.

By the 20th century, Jews badly needed major racial damage control—and so the Leo Frank Myth was born. For a full century Jews have used their immense media power to make Leo Frank the victim of the Mary Phagan Murder Case. And the strategic promotion of this boldfaced “anti-Semitism” lie is the only reason the public believes the Jewish people have been an oppressed minority in America, “just like the Blacks.” But, unacceptably, their 100-year Jewish spin on this tragic murder case is at the expense of Black people.

Alfred Uhry’s Parade is the main vehicle for this pernicious Jewish propaganda. Relatively few people will actually have attended its recent performance in Chicago, but the dozen articles it spawned in the major and minor Chicago press and beyond will serve to spread the myth of Jewish victimhood much, much further. And, along with that, they will spread the falsehood that Leo Frank was lynched for a murder committed by a Black man. Thus Uhry promotes the myth of a “Black anti-Semite” as the source of all American Jewish woes.

The Birth of a Nation, the first Hollywood blockbuster, was also a Ku Klux Klan recruitment film. So rotten were its Black caricatures that white actors in burnt cork blackface had to play some “negro” parts. Black actors must now see Parade in the very same way. Let Jews promote a racist myth as actual history—that is their prerogative. Black participation in our own degradation for a Jewish P.R. campaign is simply a disgrace.

Alfred Uhry probably didn’t mean to be so apt when he was asked by an interviewer, “What do you hope people will bring away from this musical?”

If people are touched, I’ve done my job. This is risky. Sometimes I think, “OK, this time they’re going to catch me, I have no talent, they’re going to nail me for the fraud I am.”




Billy Graham Warned Nixon of ‘Synagogue of Satan’

Transcript: Billy Graham and Richard Nixon, February 21, 1973

Graham: “And the people that have been the most pro-Israel are the ones that are being attacked now by the Jews.


The Rev. Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon held a phone conversation on February 21, 1973, right after a horrific terrorist attack committed by Israel. The Israelis had just shot down a civilian airplane, killing 108. After an exchange of niceties, the transcription starts at 2:10:


Graham: I believe, I believe the Lord is with you. I really do. 

Nixon: You know, we’ve got, we’ve still got the problems. Wasn’t that a horrible thing, those Israelis shooting down that plane?

Graham: Terrible. [unintelligible]

Nixon: I’ve just been raising the devil about that because, uh, I mean it was so stupid, it was so stupid. I mean, to shoot down an unarmed 707? Good heavens. I mean, that’s worse than what they did at the Olympics, the other side. 

Graham: Well, this will be an embarrassment for her [Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir], coming here next week, won’t it?

Nixon: Well, I think it is, yes. But, on the other hand, that’s going to be her embarrassment—not ours. We didn’t do it. But we have to have her, of course. And, uh, she’s, uh—I’ve urged the Israelis, of course privately, that they ought not only to express condolences but to, uh, but to indicate that they’re gonna pay reparations for this. They’ve just got to do it. 

Graham: Absolutely.

Nixon: They just did a terrible thing to have happen, because…

Graham: Things seemed to be moving a little bit better. At least that from what all I read…

Nixon: Yes, and then bing—they do this. 

Graham: …and here Sadat was moving a little bit to the right, it seemed to me.

Nixon: Yes. Now this’ll force him over again.

Graham: That’s right. It sure will. 

Nixon: Yeah. 

Graham: He’ll have to listen to these extremists on the left. 

Nixon: Yeah. We—. It’ll probably stir up for a few days. I don’t know. But we’ll—. Any rate, we’re not going to be, we can’t be blamed for what everybody does. But, I must… with… Mrs. Meir, we’re gonna have to talk pretty straight to her about this sort of thing. When she’s here. 

Graham: Well—.

Nixon: Now, the Israelis, you see, what they do with a thing like this is they lose all of the support that they have in the world, you know…

Graham: That’s right. 

Nixon: We’re their only friends anyway: no other country’s their friend anymore. And now this just raises, uh—Oh! It’s just terrible. 

Graham: There’s two other points. One is, the front page of papers over the weekend carried the story that they’re talking about expelling all Christians from Israel. 

Nixon: Oh, isn’t that nice. 

Graham: And, uh, then the second point is that the Jews in this country are just raising a big… uh, uh…  in speech after speech. Now, for example, this morning on the front page of the Atlanta Constitution, its third major story on the front page was a rabbi denouncing what is called “Key ’73.” Key ’73 is a combination of all the major denominations in the United States including most Roman Catholics, for the first time, joining together in an evangelistic effort. [Nixon chuckles] And they are damning Campus Crusade and damning, so forth, and Rabbi Tannenbaum is coming down here to see me this week about it. And, of course, they are never calling my name. Because they know of uh…

Nixon: You’re their friend. 

Graham: I’ve been their friend, and they know that, but, at the same time, they are going right after the Church. And, and, and there’s a great deal of feeling beginning to rise in areas where they’ve had great friendship. 

Nixon: What’ll happen out of this, if they don’t, you know? What I really think is that deep down in this country there is a lot of anti-Semitism, and all this is going to do is stir it up. 

Graham: It’s right under the surface…

Nixon: Oh boy. 

Graham: …and right to the top.

Nixon: That’s right. Well, anyway. But, uh, I must say that in terms of the other things that, uh, nobody could have ever anticipated that those great tunnels, and the POW, how they would handle themselves. You know, we—they, they did it all on there own. Nobody planned it, they just came off there with their heads high. And if we hadn’t ended the war in the right way, you know, with, uh, they wouldn’t have come out that way. If, for example, we had done what so many were urging—just get out of the war; in other words, we withdraw, if they give us our prisoners—they’d come down with their heads down.

Graham: Well, I—. They surely would. And, uh, they came off those planes saluting and saying “God bless America” and “God bless Nixon.” It was tremendous. I told, uh, my son tonight—I hadn’t seen him in quite a while—and I told him—he’s 21—that, uh, I’m not very emotional but I really cried when I saw those people. I just thought…

Nixon: Yeah, well I think the whole nation did, actually. Yeah.

Graham: …it was just a tremendous experience for this country. You know, the country, Mr. President, needed some heroes. 

Nixon: Exactly.

Graham: And we got ’em. And if they don’t get exploited now and, uh, the high pressure promoters use them…

Nixon: Yeah, that’s right.

Graham:  …and the bad stories start coming out when they have to face problems at home. But, uh…

Nixon: Well, there will be some of that but we won’t exploit them, of course. We’re gonna wait until they all get back before we even have them here at the White House. But then, then we will. 

Graham: Well, they deserve it.  And, uh, they’re a marvelous group of people and it has brought a whole new wave of support, in a very unique way, to you, because people say, “Well, he was right.” In a very dark moment in December, you were right. And they’re gonna trust you the next time, in a way that they didn’t in the past.  And I think that you’ve, you’ve got a tremendous groundswell of support for you. Did you get a copy of the letter that I wrote to Mark Hatfield?

Nixon: Yes, I did [chuckles]. I was, uh, I, uh. [Of] course, I didn’t get particularly stirred up about his comments; I just thought it was rather bad taste. But uh…

Graham: Yeah, but for him.

Nixon: Uh… I think… I thought a lot of people thought he was quite a bit out of line on that—no grace, no, uh, no, you know.

Graham. Oh, it was terrible. I sat there so embarrassed I didn’t know what to do. And when he sat back down, I turned to him, I said, I said “Mark,” I said, “I want to talk to you about that talk.” 

Nixon: Did you? [chuckles]

Graham: And, uh, he didn’t say anything and I hadn’t heard from him so I wrote him a letter and told him that I, I just felt that it would have been a wonderful thing if he had turned to you and said “Mr. President, thank you for getting us this cease fire”… 

Nixon: Yeah, and he didn’t do it.

Graham: …instead of getting up, talking about the sins, and so forth—really, it was terrible. 

Nixon: Well, he’s a strange fellow sometimes, isn’t he?

Graham: I don’t understand him. He is the big disappointment in political life…

Nixon: He’s playing…

Graham: …at least in the politics that I have known…

Nixon: He’s playing… What he’s doing is… I think, unfortunately, he’s playing to the radical groups on the campus and the rest. He doesn’t realize that they’ve passed him by now. 

Graham: Well, they’re in the past. That was proven in McGovern. 

Nixon: That’s right. And here he is still, you know, pandering to that group, which is very unfortunate. 

Graham: Yes, but to use a platform like that in your presence, at a presidential prayer breakfast—which we’ve leaned over backwards all these years to keep nonpolitical—and to get up and do a thing like that was just inexcusable and if he has any part in it next year I don’t intend to go. 

Nixon: Well, I won’t either. 

Graham: I told Doug Coe already about it and Doug, of course, is very clo—. And, you know, the interesting thing about it is that Harold Hughes is getting deep into this prayer breakfast thing, and he goes to every single meeting, he’s on every committee, and pretending to be, you know, a great Christian. And, uh, and in my judgment, there’s something wrong because the night that [Senator John C.] Stennis was shot…

Nixon: Yup.

Graham: …they asked me to come to a prayer meeting in the prayer chapel in the Senate, in the Capitol. And Harold Hughes was there. And, uh, Mark Hatfield was there. And when Harold Hughes started to pray—he was going to pray out loud—he said that he could not pray because he had such hatred in his heart for you. [Nixon chuckles] And so, uh, he really did, to his credit, he said “Oh, God, forgive me.” He said, “I want this out of my heart.” Because, he said, “He’s my president.” And he went through this tremendous, uh, strange experience. For me it was strange. And, um, I uh, I just—.

Nixon: One of their problems is, uh, Billy, with these people like Hughes and Hatfield too is, it’s, uh, it’s a very personal thing with them. That they proved to be wrong on the war and now they just hate to give up. That’s really what’s part of it, don’t you think?

Graham: And a lot of them, they hate to give up. But, they also, some of them, hated that you’re the one got the, got the thing over with. 

Nixon: Yeah, because they had been condemning it so much, and said everything we were doing was wrong and then when it proved to be right…

Graham: Well, I…

Nixon: …then it proved they were wrong, you see? 

Graham: Well, we’re—. All of your friends like me were just so proud and thrilled, and just think, you just think back four years ago where this country was and how far you’ve taken us, it’s tremendous. 

Nixon: Well, you’re feeling pretty good, are you?

Graham: I’m feeling great.

Nixon: Fine.

Graham: Now, Rosy, uh, talked to me about the possibility of coming to the dinner for Mrs. [Golda] Meir. I don’t know whether you know that they were inviting us, but I don’t know whether we should, whether you want us or not…

Nixon: Oh, sure, sure, you should come.

Graham: …[at] the, uh, dinner, but of course if we’re invited, we’ll be…

Nixon: Sure…

Graham: …able to come. 

Nixon: Sure. I uh. This incident, I don’t think is going to change that. I think we just have to go forward, we’re gonna have the dinner—we have to. I think your coming would be the right thing to do, right?

Graham: It might be, because of this religious situation that’s coming up in the country. 

Nixon: Right. But I would be very, very tough with, uh, all of our Jewish friends in here, and Mark Tannenbaum—you tell him he’s making a terrible mistake and that they’re gonna get the darndest wave of anti-Semitism here if they don’t behave. 

Graham: Well, that’s exactly right. And Mark Tannenbaum is probably the most outspoken and the most listened-to rabbi in America…

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham:  …and he’s going to come down here this week. And, uh, he wrote a, um, letter to the New York Times defending me a few days ago. And, uh, he, uh—I think if we can swing him over to make some strong statements, it’ll have a great effect.

Nixon: Right.

Graham: He certainly is one of the cleverest and most brilliant of the rabbis… 

Nixon: Right, right.

Graham: …and, uh, it was very much for you this past time. You know, we tried to get him to lead the prayer group at the convention and he felt he couldn’t go quite that far. 

Nixon: No. Well, the thing that you’ve really got to emphasize to him though, Billy, is that this anti-Semitism is stronger than we think, you know. They just—. It’s unfortunate, but this has happened to the Jews: it happened in Spain, it’s happened in Germany, it’s happening. And now it’s gonna happen in America, if these people don’t start behaving. 

Graham: Well, you know, I told you one time that the Bible talks about two kinds of Jews. One is called “the synagogue of Satan.” They’re the ones putting out the pornographic literature; they’re the ones putting out these obscene films. 

Nixon: Like the thing in Time Magazine. And… 

Graham: It’s terrible…

Nixon: …and then Newsweek

Graham: Ruth canceled both of them. 

Nixon: Good for her. 

Graham: We won’t take Time or Newsweek.

Nixon: I’ll tell you, it’s a disgraceful thing, and I think, I think, really, they don’t deserve to live.

Graham: And for Time to come out, the week of your inauguration, with that thing, was so… 

Nixon: That’s right.

Graham: …unbelievable.

Nixon: Yeah, they—. That’s the first time they ever covered an inauguration without having it on the cover.

Graham: And Henry Luce would turn over in his grave. 

Nixon: I’ll say he would. I’ll say. Well.

Graham: And they’re gonna go the same way that Life went.

Nixon: They will unless they start to shaping up. 

Graham: I was talking to [Barney? Laska?]. He was down there taking a vacation while we were, and he was telling me about the great amount of advertising that Time has lost over the thing.

Nixon: They really have.

Graham: That’s what he said. 

Nixon: Well, they deserve it, they deserve it. The advertisers ought to be sick about this sort of thing.

Graham: Well, I saw you walked over to Trader Vic’s. That’s where I eat in Washington, had a nice time. 

Nixon: Wonderful place, yeah, they’re so nice, all those people and uh… the uh…

Graham: And I saw you riding around with Jackie Gleason. [NIxon chuckles] That was great.

Nixon: Yeah, we had a great reception in South Carolina too. That was…

Graham: Oh yes, it’s on the front pages of every paper here.

Nixon: Those people are—they were great down there. Of course, that’s good country. Good country. 

Graham: This has become Nixon country down through here. [both chuckle]

Nixon: Well, we’ll see you then next, uh—is it Wednesday or Thursday or,  I guess, Thursday.

Graham: Thursday, I believe she told me. 

Nixon: Uh huh. Thursday. I guess. Right. Thursday. Well, we’ll try to make her [Golda Meir]… Uh… We’ll, we’ll let her feel all right. But, boy I’ll tell you, privately, you’ve got to be very strong with these people. 

Graham: We’re going to have a real hair-letting with Rabbi Tannenbaum and find out exactly. And he, he, I think basically, is our friend.  And I want to—.

Nixon: You could point out this: that there’s nothing that I want to do more than to be, I mean, not only a friend of Israel but the friend of the Jews in this country but that, that I have to turn back a terrible tide here if they don’t get a hold of it themselves. And, uh, and it’s up to them.

Graham: And they better understand it and understand it quick.

Nixon: Because there are, there are elements in this country—no, not just the Birchers but a lot of reasonable people are now getting awful sick of it. 

Graham: They really are. 

Nixon: Don’t you think so?

Graham: And the Church too. I think what has happened in the church in the last two months, is almost… uh… They have almost… uh… These denominational leaders, I’m amazed. They are shaken by all this because they’ve been so pro-Jewish. 

Nixon: Sure.

Graham: And the people that have been the most pro-Israel are the ones that are being attacked now by the Jews. And then they’re coming…

Nixon: Can’t figure it out.

Graham: …they’re going to kick all Christians out of Israel is, is unbelievable. 

Nixon: Can’t figure it out. Can’t figure it out. Well, it may be they have a death wish. You know, that’s been the problems with our Jewish friends for centuries. 

Graham: Well, they’ve always been, through the Bible at least, God’s timepiece and he has judged them from generation to generation…

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham:  …and uh… and yet used them and they’ve kept their identity…

Nixon: Right.

Graham: …and one of the things they’re terribly afraid of is so many of these Jewish young people are turning away from Judaism…

Nixon: Yeah. 

Graham: …and turning away from Jewishness. They say they’re Jews but they’re becoming followers of Jesus. Well, that’s just scaring them to death. 

Nixon: [chuckles] I see. 

Graham: You see they’ve set up, they’ve set up all over the country these Jews for Jesus at the various universities. 

Nixon: Good.

Graham: They said they’re remaining Jews but they believe that Jesus was treated wrongly. And uh, they’re—and this is frightening Jewish leaders and they’re overreacting in this country. [Nixon sighs deeply] I’m talking about the rabbis.

Nixon: Oh, I know. Sure. Sure. The professional Jews. But they’re—they’re like the Episcopalians. They’re, they’re losing any appeal to their own people. 

Graham: Sometime when, uh, I have, when you have a few minutes, I want to tell you a plan for organizing, on a world scale, a counterpart to the World Council of Churches. 

Nixon: Boy, GOOD!

Graham: Just for your knowledge, we’re having a conference next summer in Lausanne, with four thousand world leaders…

Nixon: Good.

Graham: …church leaders, bishops and so forth that are sick and tired of the World Council.

Nixon: Well, you know, [Eugene] Carson Blake and these people have been—well, they’re so, uh, totally overboard, you know, the, on everything that is decent. I mean, they’re, uh. they do it in the name of passivism and the rest, but they’re really, uh, uh, they’re really so close to the communists, it’s unbelievable. 

Graham: Well, they are, and, uh, and they say NOTHING against the communists. Ever.

Nixon: NEVER, never. I know.

Graham: Always against us, it’s against South Africa, it’s against Greece and so forth.

Nixon: That’s right. They say—.

Graham: And, uh, you can just—their stuff seems to be written, uh…

Nixon: — right out of …

Graham: …on that side of the country, uh, world.

Nixon:  …written right out of Moscow.

Graham: It sure does. 

Nixon: Right. 

Graham: And just as you have changed the, uh, political picture, we hope to change the religious picture…

Nixon: Well, listen, I’m all for it and uh—.

Graham: … and it’s going to be a bombshell when it comes. 

Nixon: When do you—that’s going to be in the summer?

Graham: Uh, next summer, summer after,  in ’74. We’re going to have, uh, at least half of the Anglican Church, the Anglican World…

Nixon: Mm hm.

Graham: …with us from Britain.

Nixon: Good. 

Graham: We will have a third of the German Lutheran. We will have the great majority of the American Church.

Nixon: Will you?

Graham: We’ll have 90% of the Latin Church, we’ll have 75% of the Far Eastern Church, and we’re going to have, uh— and we’ll be better financed. 

Nixon: Hmm. Now what about the Catholics?

Graham: We don’t know. They’re going to come in great numbers as observers. 

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: So far, they would not be able to participate and, uh… 

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: …you know, the Southern Baptists and groups like that wouldn’t…

Nixon: Yuh. The trouble is that, uh…

Graham:  …they couldn’t anyway.

Nixon: The difficulty too is—the Catholics had better shape up a bit too [or] they’re gonna be losing their stroke because…

Graham: Well, they’re, they’re as divided as the Protestants. 

Nixon: …they’re split right down the middle, they sure are. You’ve got the good guys like, you know, Crowe[?] [Krol?] in Philadelphia and, uh, Cook[1] in New York, and then there’s this, this bad wing, that is the Jesuits, who used to be the conservatives, have become the all-out, uh, barn-burning radicals. 

Graham: I, I think quite a bit, by the way, of that fellow you’ve got working for you, [John J.] McLaughlin.

Nixon: Oh yes, yeah, the priest! Yeah.

Graham: Yeah!

Nixon: He’s good. You know, he’s sort of a convert, uh, to our side. He came in a total, all-out peacenik and then he went to…

Graham: You told me about it.

Nixon: …went to Vietnam and changed his mind. 

Graham: I’d never met him until I was over at, uh, our Prayer Breakfast over at the White House about a month ago. 

Nixon: Yup, yup. 

Graham: Uh, he invited me up to his office and I went over and spent about an hour with him. 

Nixon: He’s a very capable fellow, bright as a tack. Well, anyway, we’ll see you then on the first. 

Graham: Well, thank you sir.

Nixon: Yeah.

Graham: I appreciate your calling.

Nixon: Tell Ruth, we’ll look forward to seeing her?

Graham: Okay.

Nixon: All right.

Graham: God bless ya.

Nixon: Bye. 

Graham: Bye.


[1] G. Bradford Cook?