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.)

David was a successful, fifty-year-old-plus king of one of the greatest nations on earth and he would have been wise to follow his own advice in Psalm 24:4 as to having a pure heart when he saw Bathsheba taking a bath. Even though David had multiple wives and concubines, he wanted what was illegal for him to have. He wanted Bathsheba and he took her and paid for it for the rest of his life. King David’s urge of the moment became the scourge of a lifetime.

When King David watched from his rooftop a young, beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he was not concerned with her dress but her undress. David maneuvered events to get her into his bed; after all, he was the king and some perks went with that position. Here was an example of God’s man not acting like God’s man.

Some theologians think Bathsheba trapped David, but that is conjecture. David was guilty but Bathsheba was somewhat culpable. After all, she did reveal her exposed body and while a subject, did not cry “rape.” Even in that culture of an absolute monarchy, a principled woman should have resisted. Even if she had played him like a fiddle to get him into bed, he was a big boy and he made the decision. Both were responsible for the sin of adultery.

Women have been told that they should not dress seductively because it will make men lust after them. However, females should dress modestly because it is godly to do so. Modesty is honoring to Christ and to the female body.

Obviously, Bathsheba was careless in bathing where others could see her. But what about the woman who dresses immodestly showing intimate parts of her body? Critics tell us that those of us who promote modesty believe that sex is sinful and the human body is dirty and bad. That kind of talk comes from people who are desperate for a supporting argument. It is a fact that all skin and body organs are not made equal. Female breasts are more interesting to men than are elbows, but you knew that didn’t you!

Proverbs 5:19 says to husbands about their wives, “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” That permission is only for her husband. Ravished means to be intoxicated, so sex between husband and wife is expected to be fervent, frequent, and fantastic (for wife as well as husband). However, it is wrong for a female to expose her body to seek attention from men who don’t have that right to see her. Some accuse those of us who advocate modesty as being sexually repressive, but that is a silly, hollow argument.

The developer of the miniskirt and hot pants, fashion designer Mary Quant said, “I love vulgarity. Good taste is death, vulgarity is life.” What a fool! She proved that when you drink from a polluted fountain you always get polluted water. She helped make vulgarity arguable, available, then acceptable.
Some men and women expose their body to others not to tempt them but simply to exhibit themselves. In other words many are exhibitionists and might be shocked if observers approached them for immoral reasons.

I Tim. 2:9 tells women, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” This passage teaches that women should dress in an appropriate way without any extremes that would draw attention to them. Women in that day often wove thin gold and silver strips and wire into their hair and Paul was teaching that that is unnecessary, unacceptable, and undesirable and is now unscriptural.

The Apostle Paul says that it is not good for Christian ladies to pay such attention to their hair as the heathen do. Dress, for men and women, should be suitable for the place, time, and occasion. Paul is also saying that women should pay attention to themselves because neglect is just as wrong as the other extreme. She should not be an offense to any class of people and during those days the church had people from all social strata. He is not saying that the use of gold and silver is wrong, only the excessive use is wrong. He is saying, “Stop trying to appear like the wicked ladies around you. You are servants of Christ. Act and dress like it.”

The wife of Phocion, a celebrated Athenian general, received a visit from a rich lady who was elegantly adorned with gold and jewels, and her hair festooned with pearls. The visitor took occasion to call attention to the elegance and costliness of her dress but her host replied, “My ornament is my husband, now for the twentieth year general of the Athenians.” Good putdown. She treasured her longtime marriage more than gold, silver, and pearls; or basking in her husband’s position, she did not feel a need to use gold and silver to establish her prestige.

We should err on the side of caution. Better be too narrow than too broad. Women’s dress should be modest (not frumpy) and men should keep their eyes on her elbows and their hands to themselves.

In I Pet. 3 God tells us not to be so concerned with clothes, gold, and jewels but “let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.”

God knows what’s important; most modern Christians do not.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

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?

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 and did not deal with his past involvement with the Nazi movement, 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 he refuses to look at both sides of an issue or if he/she refuses 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 do 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 from the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more 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 it 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 little debate in the King controversy? During the eight 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.

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 God speed.” 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, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani 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 flack. 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 to 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 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, and I would feel the same about a white conservative!

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

Adultery seems to be too much pain for so little gain! I wonder if General Patraeus thinks his roll in the hay was worth the destruction of his reputation, career, and maybe his marriage.

God has not rescinded the Old Testament law forbidding adultery. In fact, it was strengthened when Christ commanded, “But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). He further said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 5:32).”

Apart from the Bible command, there are social reasons to prohibit adultery. One reason is because of paternity of children. If a wife is a cheat, how can a husband be sure that a child born to her is truly his? He should not be financially responsible for another man’s child. He also wants his estate to go to his own not another man’s child. Few sane people would disagree that sexual immorality has driven society to the cusp of the abyss, and it is in the best interest of everyone to have decent, caring, unselfish, and vow-keeping marriages.

Adultery is so serious, it is the only cause God permits as an excuse for breaking up of a marriage. It should be much more difficult to obtain a divorce, thereby forcing couples to solve their problems rather than breaking up a small civilization (the home) because of “irreconcilable differences” or “She’s a bad cook,” or “He keeps me awake with his snoring.”

I think it is astounding that any man would go to bed with a female not his own wife. When a man seeks sex from another woman, he often gets far more than he expected–such as syphilis and gonorrhea or even AIDS.

It is time for each state to reinstate adultery as a crime! Those who glibly say, “You can’t legislate morality” are “know nothings” since every law legislates someone’s morality. And yes, such a law would not be possible to enforce, but it would be a crime for anyone to have unmarried sex. That fact alone would keep some people from crossing the line into law-breaking.

With such a law it would make it easy to prohibit or prosecute those who would promote immorality especially to children, such as the Planned Parenthood pamphlet that was given to school children: “Sex is fun, and joyful…and it comes in all types and styles, all of which are OK. Do what gives pleasure and enjoy what gives pleasure and ask for what gives pleasure. Don’t rob yourself of joy by focusing on old-fashioned ideas about what’s ‘normal’ or ‘nice.’ Just communicate and enjoy.” States should make such jerks criminals for corrupting children and promoting sexual immorality.

Adultery is already an offense in the U.S. military but it is not forbidden by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Adultery is usually prosecuted, if at all, under the General Article that “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.” Prosecution usually depends on the circumstances such as rank, publicity, background, and other considerations.

When General David Patraeus, although retired, admitted to adultery with his female biographer it brought discredit upon the military and himself. The knowledge by the world that he broke his vows to his wife of 35 years produced a loss of confidence in his military and intelligence capabilities. He destroyed his life, his career, and maybe his marriage because of adultery. Maybe a strict prohibition against adultery would have helped the general keep his zipper up. Loss of rank, retirement and brig time might also help with that.

The consequences to society from adultery are great enough to add adultery as a crime in each state and use it as a tool against married people who break their marriage vows, unmarried people who live like barnyard animals, and politicians who expose themselves to blackmail by illicit sex.

The status of morality in America is shameful, shameless, and sad and it reinforces Madison’s statement in the “Federalist Papers”: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” We are not angels so some laws are necessary. And to critics who tell us that it is no one’s business what consenting adults do, we say, “Nonsense.” We already have laws restricting what consenting adults can do: drug use, watching child porn, conspiracy to commit crimes, bestiality, sadomasochism, suicide pacts, sodomy (in some states), etc.

Civilized nations have always accepted the Ten Commandments as part of their criminal code and if it should be illegal to steal and kill, why not restore adultery as a crime?

According to Plutarch, Demosthenes declared, “We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act.”

Killing a wife’s lover may be a little extreme but it was legal in Texas until 1974 to kill your wife and her lover if caught in the act of adultery. Many Texas and other state juries would still be reluctant to send a man to jail for “defending his honor” by killing his wife’s lover.

Whatever state governments do, adultery is still sin and making it a crime would label it as harmful to everyone.

One female author presented her case for sexual permissiveness when she compared eating to sex: “Sex is no more a moral issue than eating a good meal,” she writes. “The fact that we eat most meals at home with spouses and partners does not preclude eating out in restaurants to sample different cuisines and ambiences, with friends or colleagues.” So we are back to the days when every man (and woman) did that which was right in their own eyes.

To compare eating with sex is to make something sacred very frivolous. Of course, one can get bad food and bad sex–that being sex not within the bounds of marriage. Or sex that is prompted by lust, not love.  Fallen men and women have made sex, one of God’s greatest gifts, a sordid affair.

Adultery is generally considered to be when a husband cheats on his wife, or when the wife cheats on her husband. In countries where adultery is illegal, the punishments range from fines to the death penalty. Punishment for adultery in some American states varies from a ten dollar fine in Maryland to life in prison in Michigan! Adultery is still illegal in 23 American states. Each state should make adultery illegal again and it should be enforced; however, it would not be practical to energetically go after the law breakers. Resources would not permit that; but such a law could be helpful, especially in divorce cases.

Among the American Indians, severe penalties could be imposed on an adulterous wife by her husband. Sometimes she experienced bodily mutilation which would, in the mind of the offended husband, prevent her from ever being a temptation to other men again.

In medieval England, an adulterous woman had her nose and ears cut off and was paraded through town to a jeering crowd. The guilty man watched the proceedings and went home to enjoy a bowl of soup, hard bread, and a spot of ale. Obviously, the men made and enforced the laws.

The Greeks and Romans had strong laws against adultery; however, it was usually not equitable.  In Rome, a man was not held to account for adultery but his wife was. The Romans (before Christ) banished adulterers with the two parties sent to different islands. Moreover, part of their property was confiscated by the state. Husbands could kill the offending partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found widespread support for stoning as a punishment for adultery among Muslims in Egypt (82% of participants were in favor of the punishment), Jordan (70% were in favor), Indonesia (42% were in favor), Pakistan (82% were in favor) and Nigeria (56% were in favor). I doubt they would be so quick to pick up stones if they followed Christ’s admonition in John 8:7, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” He had just forgiven a woman “taken in adultery.” He commanded her to “go and sin no more.”

Laws prohibiting adultery go back to the Ten Commandments given by God to the Hebrew nation as recorded in Exodus 20:14. God ordered, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Of course, adultery was wrong from the beginning of creation.) The Hebrews took that as a divine command that they broke at their own peril. Today, the Ten Commandments are looked upon as naïve and benign suggestions; however, they are still operative whether people believe the Bible or not.

Whether adultery is a crime or not, it is still a sin and no legislature can repeal that fact.