By Don Boys, Ph.D.

Martin Luther King was loved and hated at the same time he was idolized and feared by dissimilar segments of our nation. Many southern Whites hated him because he was black (and for no other reason) while many Blacks almost worshipped and defended him for the same reason (see previous parenthesis). However, it is considered crass, crude, and even cruel to point out such nonsense.

Martin Luther King’s statement that a person should be judged by his character not the color of his skin is a majestic thought. I will do that as I look at King, and I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls, and others will do the same.

Some “conservatives” need to do likewise!

Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?

A large number of people reading damaging facts about King will not be moved to take a stand that would indicate any criticism of King. They will maintain vociferously principled character not understanding their position proves their dishonesty.

However, even a few honest liberals have bravely admitted King’s dark side!

Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” Neuhaus is a well-known liberal theologian and writer. My research also indicates that King was a drunk, plagiarist, bisexual, and Marxist. Try to remember that we are not concerned with his race or complexion, but his character.

If I were looking at David Duke’s life and did not deal with his past involvement with the Klan, I would be accused of bias or poor research. In the interest of truth, am I not required to do the same with King? If not, then why is he exempt from a careful, honest look at his past to make a decision about him in the present? If I am wrong, please correct me.

No person deserves to be called a journalist if they refuse to look at both sides of an issue or if they refuse to give proper weight to all arguments because of prejudice. If a writer is fearful of where the truth will lead him, he should be selling insurance.

During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I asked the editor if I could submit a column on King’s plagiarism, however, I never got permission. I had read the story of King’s literary thievery in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips to the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. The Wall Street Journal broke the story a couple of months later although they did so gingerly.

It is noteworthy that the American media was then forced to deal with King’s plagiarism, but even then they defended him! One main defense was that plagiarism was a “black thing,” which was an insult to honest, decent Blacks. When you quote King, you don’t know whom you are quoting.

Why is there so little debate in the King controversy? During the years I wrote columns for USA Today, the editor would not permit me to do a column on King although every year in early January, they always did a page dealing with him. I have one issue that has five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere.

That is the reason I refused to sign another contract with USA Today.

Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus numerous one-night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual having been heard during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. King was also caught running naked after a woman down a Norway hotel hallway during his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize! The night before he was killed he spent the night with two women and fought with a third, according to his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. If a man will not keep his marriage vows, he is not worthy to walk my dog.

According to the Bible, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His virgin birth, and His physical resurrection; so according to II John, he should not be honored; in fact, no one should “bid him Godspeed.” Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, ever seeking to get lost men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Never happened because he did not believe that was essential.

King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and assorted Republicans, was a man without character; and informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.

While I was a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, a member introduced a bill to memorialize King before we had his national holiday forced upon us. The memorialization meant nothing since we did them almost every day as routine.

When the King vote came up (it was a voice vote since it was no big deal), mine was the only negative vote out of a hundred. No one in the senate voted no. I wondered where all the conservatives were. Soon they surrounded me saying that they should have voted with me but didn’t think it was worth the return fire. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!

The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak about the issue and demand a recorded vote but did not do so. Why? I don’t know. Some might say it was peer pressure. My conservative friends told me, “Don, it won’t do any good and could hinder your chances of getting your bills even assigned to a committee.” It was the only time I did not follow my principles while in office.

King does not deserve a national holiday but instead, he should be exposed as a fraud, a fake, and a fool. I would feel the same about a white conservative! My brief documented eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! supports my position. It is now available at Amazon.com.

As for celebrating King’s birthday, I will not do so but I will take the day off since it is my birthday!

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Historically, when despots take control of a free people, they always take guns from everyone and rewrite history. They try to make oppressors into national saviors and turn sincere patriots into thugs. This rewriting of history is happening as I write as leftists distort political and economic reality, destroy true patriots, and deify thugs.

The accurate image of Martin Luther King, Jr. has been reworked, repackaged, and remade into a secular saint by desperate people who can’t argue the issue on his merits but must stoop to manufactured mythology.

But that make-over mythology has been slowly changing with the obviously outrageous and overdone pitches that “vaccines are safe and effective,” “Democrats are naturally good political leaders for the little man,” “a man can become a woman and birth a baby,” and “a nation should welcome anyone and everyone to become citizens.”

Only non-thinking, far-leftist, semi-comatose progressives still believe such poppycock. Some are willing to say so even though honest Conservatives have been aware of the truth for many years. Such people have also looked anew at Martin Luther King, Jr., and admit he had major flaws even if they believe he made a lasting contribution to freedom.

The King issue has been seething, then simmering, then smoldering for decades but is now blazing with the freedom of the internet.

In 2014, Oliver Stone dropped out of writing and directing the much-anticipated MLK film because the King people in Atlanta rejected his script. They refused to permit the truth to be told since Stone planned to deal with “issues of adultery, conflicts within the movement, and King’s spiritual transformation.”

Incredibly, many allegedly honest people do not demand the unpleasant truth about their heroes. It seems many who lean left are basically dishonest people who will do anything to preserve their myths. King’s family and other leftists are still whitewashing his image; after all, big bucks are involved as everyone knows who has dealt with King’s family.

Since King’s birthday is a national holiday, I present the following indisputable facts about King in the interest of a faithful historical record. My readers can decide if I’m a racist or a realist interested in the truth. I would have the same distaste for any man guilty of the practices and principles of King.

King was a pinko, progressive, and closet Communist: King’s very liberal biographer, David J. Garrow, wrote: “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” King’s secretary during the early stage of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, The Rev. Uriah J. Fields wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with communists.” If that doesn’t bother you, alright, but don’t claim he was only a Socialist.

Liberal black newspaper columnist Carl Rowan attended National Security Council meetings and was permitted to see confidential FBI files on King. Rowan said that King was known to be a Communist since May of 1962 when King’s name was “placed in Section A …tabbed Communist” in the FBI’s files. William Sullivan, Assistant Director of the FBI, concluded at the time that King was “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security.” Sullivan was a significant supporter of King!

King was a philander: Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” That’s from a friend!

King’s friendly biographer David J. Garrow revealed to USA Today King’s justification for his sexual immorality: “He [King] explained it as someone on the road 27 days a month and needing sex as a form of anxiety reduction and for emotional solace.”  Oh, well, that makes King’s adultery and betrayal of his marriage and ordination vows acceptable–maybe even commendable to desperate sycophants on the far left!

For those who worship at King’s image, an AP article should be a knockout blow with its heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat.’” That was followed by a graphic description of King’s last night on earth. “The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spent parts of the night before his assassination with two women and then fought physically with a third, according to the memoirs of the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, King’s top aide.” Preachers are supposed to “fight a good fight” but King perverted that teaching–in spades.

It says much about the King defenders who persist in trying to justify such vile practices.

Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Senator John P. East of North Carolina stating that King’s activities consisted of “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

King was a pervert: Black columnist Carl Rowan reported that the FBI tapes suggest a homosexual relationship between King and his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy! Black talk show host and columnist Tony Brown added more light on this possibility when he reported on King’s banter to Abernathy in one of their hotel rooms. However, it was so vulgar, I will not even disguise King’s request to his “best friend,” Abernathy.

Martin was a prevaricator:  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover said that King was the “most notorious liar” in America and that “King is a tomcat with obsessive degenerate urges.” King also lied about his name all his life since his name was Michael, not Martin. He lied to his ordination committee; he lied to his wife; he lied on his college and seminary papers; he lied in his books; he lied when he said he fired Communists on his payroll; he lied when he said that twice as many blacks died in Vietnam as whites. Hoover was right.

King was a plagiarist: He stole from others all his life, as was revealed by King’s people in Atlanta who admitted, “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings….We found that instances of textual appropriation can be seen in his earliest extant writings as well as his dissertation. The pattern is also noticeable in his speeches and sermons throughout his career.” Note King’s family excused his plagiarism calling it “textual appropriation.”

King’s biographer David J. Garrow states: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions…and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….” Why did they not expect more? It is a fact that King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation! It seems Boston University wanted to give a doctorate to an unqualified and dishonest black man, therefore playing the game of “Let’s pretend we are scholars in this academic enterprise.”

In his seminary papers, King copied the research and writings of others, but he also incorporated their many grammatical and theological errors! That is not only academic fraud deserving expulsion, but it is patently stupid and deserves lavish ridicule.

King was a phony: In another paper, King wrote that “the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.” In other papers, King denied Christ’s virgin birth, vicarious death, victorious resurrection, and visible return, as well as the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Martin Luther King was an unbeliever, and that makes him a phony preacher and a phony Christian!

What would be the reaction if a national holiday were suggested to honor a man, even a good man, who had past ties with the Klan or Nazis? Would it not be expected that everyone would demand that he answer some questions and his life be looked at very closely? Why is King an exception? And why did conservatives play this game of whitewashing King’s reputation? Why do important Conservatives continue to praise King without any qualification? Why will some Conservative websites refuse to publish these facts? Obviously, truth is unimportant to unprincipled people.

To sum up: There is no argument about King’s scoundrel-hood. As usual, I’ll be accused of racism, but facts are unmalleable: King was a pinko, a philander, a pervert, a prevaricator, a plagiarist, and a phony. That doesn’t bother most people, but it does bother honest people. Regardless of my motives, truth must be the driving force for left and right.

I will be accused of holding the Archie Bunker Chair for Political Science at Far-Right University because of this article. Still, the cause of truth is not helped when truth is rejected, repackaged, and ridiculed. Principled people can handle the truth, even unpleasant truth.

(All documentation for the above comments is in my eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color! available at amazon.com.)

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at Amazon.com for $4.99. Other titles at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

New revelations reveal that King had sexual relations with as many as 45 prostitutes, mistresses, and girlfriends. He was especially violent with some of them knocking one across the motel bed the night before he was shot.

Such reluctance of the media to deal honestly with King reminds me of my MLK experience while writing columns for USA Today for 8 years until I resigned in disgust. At the beginning of each year, I wrote a column dealing with an MLK theme since his birthday was now celebrated as a national holiday. Each year, the editor refused my MLK column without comment. Of course, I knew why.

Some readers will remember in those days USA Today was really rocking the newspaper boat. Each day their editorial page dealt with a single controversial issue from four or five different perspectives. For some reason, the editor always rejected my columns dealing with King but accepted my other columns! I still have one USA Today issue that dealt with King from five perspectives and not one negative word was on that page!

Then, I took another group to Israel, Syria, Jordan, etc., and spent a couple days in London on my return trip. During that time, I read about King’s massive plagiarism of his university papers, his Ph.D. dissertation, his “I Have a Dream” speech, his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” and some of his books. It was big news in the United Kingdom.

Upon my return to the states, discovering that the King scandal had not reached America, I wrote a column dealing with King’s thievery, convinced that no dedicated editor would reject it; but he did. A few months later, another journal broke the story and USA Today lost a scoop!

Progressives must never tarnish the brilliant image of King however distorted, discredited, and degraded the reality.

Soon thereafter, the paper published a full page ad of a man totally naked with his hands over his genitals. The two incidents ended my stint with the nation’s largest newspaper. In March, I told them not to send the annual agreement for me to sign.

That cowardly editorial philosophy is still rampant today in the era of fake news, false stories, and fabricated history. The nation’s press and the broadcast outlets who record world history are without class, courage, or commitment. They obviously do not subscribe to Roman statesman and historian Cicero: “The first law for the historian [or journalist] is that he shall never dare write an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true.”

It seems David Garrow is such a person.

Referring to his 1981 King biography, Garrow declared, “I have been the King guy for 40 years and I wrote a book on exactly this 38 years ago [that won him the Pulitzer Prize]. I felt a complete obligation to confront this stuff. I did not feel I had a choice. I have always felt spiritually informed by King and yes, this changed it. I have not heard his voice much the past year.”

Wow, sounds like a conversion, at least in this matter. I salute his late-in-life epiphany.

Garrow reported on FBI surveillance tapes of King’s hotel rooms that, along with other evidence, reveal that King had 40 to 45 mistresses, girlfriends, and prostitutes. Of course, the number of one-night stands is simply a guess from the FBI files and other sources. Frankly, whether he had 45 or 4 illicit affairs is irrelevant except for the degree of his degeneracy.

It seems Baltimore Pastor Logan Kearse and some of his female parishioners stayed at the historic Willard Hotel near the White House where King was staying in January 1964. King and others were invited to Kearse’s room where they discussed as to which of the women would be more suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts. One woman said she did not approve and “the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her as King watched.” The deplorable news is that King “looked on, laughed and offered advice” while Kearse raped this parishioner from his Baltimore Church!

Kearse did the world a favour when he pointed his toes skyward and turned cold in 1991.

Many are overlooking the multi-faceted aspect of this scandal. Of course, King was culpable in not defending the woman and for sure by laughing and encouraging the reverend rapist, but it gets worse because the FBI agents in the next room did nothing! So, there is plenty of blameworthiness to go around. What man, whatever his position, could permit a woman to be raped without trying to help her?

The day following the rape, “King and a dozen others allegedly participated in a ‘sex orgy’ engaging in ‘acts of degeneracy and depravity.’” When one woman “shied away” from the sex orgy, King told her that “it would be good for your soul.” Hypocrite!

In another incident, King was in a sexual threesome that included a famous gospel singer. The prostitute involved said that it was the “worst orgy” she had ever been in.

However, with this new revelation of King’s encouragement of a rape, what will the screaming ladies of the left do since they are supposed to be female supporters? It must be emphasized that the screaming feminists crucified Senator Al Franken for much less egregious sexual activity. Many women accused Al of unwanted kissing, attempted kissing, and touching of breasts. Well, that is no surprise since Franken came from the depraved entertainment industry. Yet, the Democrat legislators wanted his scalp and got it. Note, a U.S. Senator was forced to resign but King was a serial “john” who took advantage of innocent and many not-so-innocent women and encouraged a rapist.

What will the leftist ladies demand upon hearing of these revelations since the ladies are so sensitive to southern statues and slave holders such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lee? In the name of consistency (honesty), will they take a sledge hammer to King’s bust in Washington and statues around the nation? Will they rename all the streets named for King? What will they do about the puff pieces in the public school textbooks? Will they demand his national holiday be changed to National Civil Rights Day?

Race baiter Shaun King said he understands the “vital role” Jefferson played in the nation’s founding, but still contends he “should not be celebrated” in any way. “He should not have statues, or be on money, or even have a monument celebrating his positive contributions.” Now we will see what Shaun does about these new King revelations. While Jefferson is accused of sexual relations with his slave (and it may be true), there is no suggestion that violent rape was involved.

Will Shaun be fair, honest, and consistent by demanding MLK be treated as he demanded Jefferson be treated? Don’t count on it.

MLK was neither a saint nor a savior but for sure a sinner—like all of us. However, every person is born a sinner but not all of us climb into bed with Communists or prostitutes. And even principled sinners attempt to keep their marriage vows and not visit prostitutes—male or female.

What do I really expect to see? Nothing, since Liberals are generally the biggest hypocrites alive—Republicans and Democrats. Most people will continue to pretend that King was a good, great, if not godly man.

Trying to defend Martin Luther King is like pouring expensive French perfume over a healthy skunk. The results will only be temporary.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years and authored 18 books. His eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! can be viewed and purchased here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.

One FBI memo reported, “King maintains intimate relationships with at least three women, one in Atlanta, one in Mt Vernon, New York, and one in Washington, DC,” making him very susceptible to blackmail. He also had a long time mistress in Los Angeles, wife of a dentist, in addition to his many one night stands. It goes on and on. In 2010, Kentucky State Senator Georgia Davis Powers recounted her intimate relationship with King in her book, I Shared the Dream.

Garrow also reported about King’s “love child” with a girlfriend in Los Angeles and King “continued to support this child” and called the mother every Wednesday.

When Coretta King complained about her husband’s affairs, he told her she “should go out and have some sexual affairs of her own.” According to one of my contacts, Coretta got fed up and went after Martin with a butcher’s knife. He wrote me saying, “I am from Atlanta, and my grandmother’s neighbor was head of nursing at St. Joseph’s Hospital [now Emory St. Josephs]. One morning she told my grandmother that they had brought MLK into the emergency room the night before because “Coretta caught him with another woman and cut him up with a butcher’s knife.”

But evidently, Martin didn’t get her point and continued to fornicate.

Standpoint, where the original article appeared, reported, “he preferred to perform unnatural acts on women and that he had started the ‘International Association for the Advancement of P**** Eaters.’” Such an evil mind and mouth makes me ashamed of his being a Baptist.

The FBI doesn’t usually show any interest in the sexual proclivities of citizens but when a person of interest gets in bed with Communists, U.S. officials show an interest. This was especially true while we were in the middle of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The FBI got interested in King’s activities because many of his associates were members of the Communist Party USA.

King admitted to being a Marxist to Communist bag man Stanley D. Levison, a white man, who served as his speech writer, ghost writer, and tax preparer. Levison, in addition to bankrolling the Communist Party in America, also gave King $10,000 in two years which is equivalent to $87,000 in today’s money. Levison gave the Communist Party $76,500 equivalent to $650,000 in today’s money. Remember that Levison worked for King while working for the Soviet KGB secret police!

In my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color!, I deal with King’s wild sex parties, his perversion, his drunkenness, his plagiarism, his many sexual exploits including his perversion and his admission of being a Marxist. All documented by his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy, FBI files, etc. My book highlights the person, the preacher, the politician, the party, the plagiarist, the prevaricator, and the philanderer.

Garrow, a liberal, Pulitzer Prize-winning author and official biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr., dropped the literary bomb on the world a few weeks ago, and it is still reverberating around the globe except in America! His article “The Troubling Legacy of Martin Luther King” was rejected by the Guardian, Washington Post, The Atlantic, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The story from a highly recognized author was too hot to handle. It still is since none of the media moguls in the U.S. have reported the story!

What happened to the fearless reporters who try to be “fair and balanced”? What about “all the news that’s fit to print”?

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh was willing to take it on but made a serious mistake. Rush, speaking of Democrats said, “They have totally reconstructed what Dr. Martin Luther King believed in, starting with his devout Christianity, his devotion to Christ. They have totally remade the image of Dr. King. The Democrat Party has become exactly what he hoped to overcome. They have become wedded to and embedded in racial identity and sexual identity politics. The content of one’s character is of the least consequence.”

Rush was correct except the reference to King’s “devout Christianity, his devotion to Christ.” Rush was in the right ball park but not in the right seat.

I have spent many hours in King’s original papers at both Crozer Seminary and Boston University and the most generous person in the world could never identify King as a historic or biblical Christian. Of course, that is difficult for people to believe if they also believe church membership, baptism, etc., make one a Christian. King rejected, even ridiculed, all the doctrines that genuine Christians have always believed including Christ’s virgin birth, His virtuous life, His vicarious death, His victorious resurrection, and His ascension to Heaven. He also rejected the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

Obviously, Rush, the man who is usually right on target when dealing with political matters, was wrong but then everyone is from time to time.

Well, The New York Times took a swing at this explosive story, but it was from out in left field by black feminist history professor Dr. Barbara Ransby. She suggested the highly acclaimed author was “turning readers into historical peeping Toms by trafficking in what amounts to little more than rumor and innuendo from F.B.I. files.” Of course, the FBI has been known lately to be somewhat ideological but it is usually in favor of leftists.

Dr. Ransby made it clear that she believed the unsupported rantings of Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford but questions FBI motives in the King case.

Frankly, the issue is not the motives of the FBI but King’s morals—his philandering, perverted, pathetic lifestyle and how it might have made him a target of blackmail by Communists.

Considering how these revelations might impact society, Garrow said, “It poses so fundamental a challenge to his historical stature as to require the most complete and extensive historical review possible.” Of course, thinking people will ask if there should be a national holiday for him in light of King’s disgraceful life.

Decades before King’s holiday was thrust upon an uninformed nation, I voted against honoring him in 1977 in the Indiana House of Representatives. Every day we honored someone’s achievements or the success of an athletic team but one day a memorialization was introduced to honor King. It was a voice vote since it was no big deal and involved no expenditure or change in a law. It was a loud vote for the memorialization but when the Speaker asked for any no votes, I shouted the only, “no.” The House got as silent as a graveyard.

A shocked reporter for the Associated Press asked me, “Representative Boys, why did you vote no on the vote to honor Dr. King?” While my conservative friends surrounded me to make various excuses for not voting with me, I told her that King did not deserve to be honored.

Across the hall in the Senate, there was total silence on the no vote. And the next year, the same thing happened. My conservative friends in the House said that my vote was right but was not worth the negative repercussions from the Speaker who held any bills hostage if he was displeased with a bill’s author.

I am dubious about Liberals treating King as they have treated other women haters since Liberals are the most unprincipled people on earth with no concern for fairness, honesty, consistency, and truth.

I was right about King in 1977 and 1978, and I am right today. They should dump King’s holiday and replace it with National Civil Rights Day.

Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth” is applicable here.

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years and authored 18 books. His eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! can be viewed and purchased here. Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and TheGodHaters, Twitter, and visit his blog.