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.

Martin Luther King is considered a “saint” although Protestants and Baptists don’t choose saints for idealization. A major black leader called King “one of the greatest patriots” this nation has produced. It is not surprising that a Gallup Poll revealed that 94% of Americans have a favorable view of King. That is not unusual since he has been honored with a national holiday and thousands of streets and schools are named for him.

Liberal, black Professor Michael Eric Dyson declared, “I think we have to face right in the center of the hurricane, if you will, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s foibles and faults. I think that we do no good to ourselves and do no honor to him by pretending that he did not fail, that he did not wrestle greatly and, at times, surrender to his own sins and his own faults and failures.” Dyson went on to say in his book that King was “no saint.”

But informed people have always known that.

Dyson confirmed King’s many egregious personal failures in his book about King although he tries to justify them, usually insulting many Blacks. He admits King was a flagrant plagiarist although it was because of his “black heritage.” He admits King was a philanderer but he blames in all on the government’s social policies.

Sure, the government made him do it.

King was eloquent and some good came from his civil rights protests. Of course, no sane person can condone or defend his murder. 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 challenge radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will to do the same.

Some “conservatives” need to do likewise! Some who flew the conservative flag more than fifty years ago and were critical of King have in recent years spoken very positively of him—but that is changing more and more as the main stream media have been forced to deal with King’s dark side.

Critics will question my motives but do my motives really matter? Truth is supposed to be the important issue. People of character have always cared about truth. Now, some very outspoken Liberals have finally recognized the truth about King although they usually try to excuse his faults, failures, and foul-ups.

David J. Garrow is a well-known leftist author and very friendly King biographer who revealed King’s justification for his sexual immorality to USA Today: “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.” Anxiety reduction and emotional solace are now excuses and justification for immorality—as least if you are a black icon!

Richard John Neuhaus was a well-known Roman Catholic liberal theologian and writer who wrote, “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” My research for my eBook dealing with him 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.

ABC News reported that Jackie Kennedy was so angry with King that “she could barely look at images of him.” It seems President Kennedy was told that King tried to arrange a sex party while he was in town for the March on Washington. Moreover, Jackie was told that King had “made derogatory comments” during the president’s funeral—very crude, sexual remarks as Jackie bent over and kissed her husband’s coffin.

Even CBS News reported on a book of interviews with Jackie where she called King “terrible,” “tricky” and “a phony.”

The black Bishop C. Fain Kyle said that King was “directly or indirectly responsible for the chaos, anarchy, insurrection, and rebellion brought about through demonstrations and rioting throughout the United States in recent years, months, weeks, and days.”

An AP article headline should be a knockout blow for those who worship at King’s image—“FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat.’” Ralph Abernathy was a black pastor and King’s “best friend.”

Critics responding to my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color! suggested that King’s life work counterbalanced his human flaws and imperfections. It was charged that we expected him to be perfect but no, we expected him and others to keep their marriage vows and ordination vows. If not, he should have dropped the “Reverent” and become a civil rights leader, not a Baptist pastor.

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 and the validity of his national holiday? If I am wrong, I assume my critics will tell me.

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

Why was there so little debate regarding the life, peaching, and practices of King? 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 published a page dealing with his life. The January 17, 1986 issue had five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere. The paper’s refusal to deal truthfully with King was the reason I eventually refused to sign another annual contract with them.

After returning from a trip to the Middle East and the United Kingdom I asked the opinion editor if I could do a column on King’s unknown (at the time) plagiarism; however, I never received permission. I had read of King’s literary thievery in the London papers during my travels. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. A couple months later, The Wall Street Journal broke the story on November 9, 1990 although they did so gingerly.

It is noteworthy that the American main stream 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. His literary thievery was so rampant, you can never be sure King wrote a statement you quote.

Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus frequent one night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual. That fact was ascertained during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy and others. 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 King’s academic papers written while at Crozer Seminary and Boston University, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His Virgin Birth, and his physical resurrection, making him a classic unbeliever.

Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, preaching the necessity of the New Birth. 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. We don’t even have a special day for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

When 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.

The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak to the issue on the House floor 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.”

King does not deserve a national holiday but instead his “dark side” should be exposed and I would feel the same about a white conservative with a similar record. Truth does matter as Socrates declared when he said, “a man must not be honored above the truth.” People of all stripes should be delighted that more and more people are learning the truth about many former leaders.

As for celebrating King’s birthday, I will not do so but I will take the day off and visit our favorite Italian restaurant since it is my birthday!

Boys’ eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! can be viewed and purchased here.