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

In 1942, some heavyweights and many lightweight Christian leaders decided to cut their fundamentalist roots and identify as scholars, not pulpit banging “come-outers” who were “against everything.” They wanted to be recognized as religious scholars, responsible leaders, but not resolute separators. They did not want to identify with Biblicists, who refused to approve, associate, or align with non-believing church leaders.

These new Evangelicals could get along with anyone with a cheap cross around the neck and any Bible version in hand. They wanted everyone to know that they believed the Bible (but not excessively); after all, they were well-paid spokesmen (spokespersons) for its teaching. However, they wanted everyone to know that they were no longer identified with those Christians who were outspoken, clean living, independent, and even occasional Bible thumpers.

So the Evangelicals who are the most vocal, and visual, and even vile are the ones who hate President Trump and love Joe Biden.

The Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden website reads like an anemic attempt to justify their support of Biden’s approval of abortion by suggesting racism, poverty, climate change, lack of health care, etc., also kills. Well, possibly, but not one and a half million a year and not as quick and definite.

Evangelicals for Biden website assures us, “Joe Biden is a man like any other, but his character and faith set him apart in times of crisis. That’s why Evangelical Christians across the country will be voting for him in November.”

At least, with crude, rude, and lewd Trump, innocent babies are safe within the womb; our soldiers are coming home from the endless wars in the Middle East; the promised wall is being built; age-old adversaries in the Middle East are making peace; the economy is bouncing back after dubious lockdowns; unemployment is quickly receding; and tremendous strides are being made with the judicial system except for those insane governors who release rapists and killers to rape and kill again.

And moronic religious leaders are asking thoughtful citizens to vote for Joe Biden since he is so “decent,” “honest,” and a “man of faith!” Are we discussing the Joe Biden I’ve known for decades?

The Joe Biden I know is a confirmed, confessed, and a calloused liar.

He started lying and cheating as early as his college days, and he has repeatedly been found to be a plagiarist that has followed him all his political life. Joe was kicked out of law school for taking five whole pages from another writer to use in a required essay. He said it was a mistake. How does a person, even a Democrat, use five pages from someone else and call it a “mistake.”

No, it was thievery.

This clip of Biden’s plagiarism is devastating. It should quickly destroy any candidate for dogcatcher. He has been caught with his pants down numerous times taking quotes from Bob and Jack Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and many others. Frankly, it’s pitiful.

Biden has claimed that he was the first of his family to go to college, but that was a lie he admitted in 1987. Many times, he said that he “graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school” and was the “outstanding student in the political science department.” He does not have three degrees and was not the outstanding student.

Joe has tried to present himself as a very active civil rights leader but without success. One of the most avid racists does a better job than I in exposing Biden. Shaun King wrote, “Biden told wild tales of how he marched, sat-in, and boycotted during the Civil Rights Movement and even went so far as to suggest that he had traveled to Selma and Birmingham with such actions, but with his campaign in tatters, he finally said they were all lies.”

That is an assessment of Joe from the far, far left.

King continues as he quotes Biden’s boast of being a civil rights worker, “Folks, when I started in public life, in the civil rights movement, we marched to change attitudes … I remember what galvanized me … Bull Connor and his dogs … I’m serious. In Selma.” Joe’s voice drops to an Hollywood whisper. “Absolutely. Made. My. Blood. Run. Cold. Remember?” King adds, “But Joe Biden had never seen such things with his own eyes. Turns out, Joe had been telling those lies for years.” He never marched. He never sat in. He lied about participating in sit-ins that did not happen for a least a year later.

Please remember Biden was debunked about his civil rights activities by a far-left activist.

Even The Hill reported that Joe’s assertion that during the Obama administration, they “didn’t lock people up in cages” was a lie. He also declared, “Immediately, the moment [the Iraq War] started, I came out against it.” He lied. He voted for the resolution to go to war in Iraq. And he said, “I was always labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” He lied all three times, as admitted by Politico.

Joe told the inspiring story of being arrested while in South Africa when he tried to visit Nelson Mandel in prison, but the incident did not happen.

In an interview on The Breakfast Club radio show, Joe declared, “The NAACP has endorsed me every time I’ve run.” Joe lied. The NAACP has never endorsed anyone at any time.

Joe told a whopper to a crowd at Dartmouth College that during his time as vice president, he traveled to Kunar Province in Afghanistan to award a combat medal to a courageous U.S. Navy captain who had rappelled 60 feet down a treacherous cliff to retrieve the body of a fallen comrade. As Joe was about to pin a silver star on the serviceman’s uniform, in Biden’s version, he stopped when the sailor told him he didn’t deserve it. “He said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing! Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!’”

Biden added: “That is God’s truth, my word as a Biden.” But it was false. The Daily Mail reported that Biden’s story he “told a New Hampshire crowd last week was almost entirely fabricated, or a combination of unrelated memories.”

Joe has often repeated the lie, as have many, many unprincipled politicians, that Trump did not denounce rightwing extremists at Charlottesville. Trump said, “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” When confronted by a reporter, Joe doubled down and lied again.

Joe declares that he warned us of the Chinese coronavirus in a January column published in USA Today; however, you guessed it, he lied again. Even the fact-checker for the Washington Post declared that he did not deal with the virus but attacked Trump and dealt with what Obama did during the Ebola outbreak in 2014.

He has repeatedly lied about his position on fracking. He can’t make all the coal miners and oil men angry this close to an election. So he flips and flops again and again on the same issue.

Biden says he does not support the Green New Deal, but his website says otherwise! His website says, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.”

I could go and on about the liar that thoughtless Americans may put in the Oval Office, but I need to deal with his tendency to be creepy with women and girls. However, much of that is known, so I will move on to the accusation by Tara Reade, a Biden staff member. The Guardian reported that Tara said Biden “pushed her against a wall and assaulted her, penetrating her with his fingers” in a corridor in a Senate office building in 1993.

The New York Times reported that Tara told one of her friends at the time and two other friends. However, to be consistent, do we need corroboration of the charge since all women are to be believed when they make such charges? Tara also reported the assault to Senate officials without results, and she filed a complaint of Joe’s sexual harassment with the Senate personnel office. Nothing happened.

Where are all the feminists who are concerned about the mistreatment of women? Have all the hypocrites lost their voices or lost their ability to blush?

This brief expose of a candidate for President of the U.S.A. is embarrassing, and it is incredible that professing Christians would support such a man. But it is not surprising since Evangelicals lost or threw away their moral compass decades ago followed by pitching an available, accurate, and authoritative Bible.

Bigoted evangelicals have drunk the Kool-Aide mixed by Biden and what’s-her-name Harris. So sad to see religious leaders support a corrupt, cowardly, and concupiscent candidate.

(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 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and 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.)

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.

This week The Daily Caller and other media sources reported repeated plagiarism from the liberal The Daily Beast by veteran reporter Lizzie Crocker. Lizzie was fired but often the stealing from others is only worth a slap on the wrist. Often, a very slight slap on the wrist.

Plagiarism in the first century literally meant kidnapper to denote stealing someone’s literary work. The Roman poet Martial complained that another poet had “kidnapped his verses.”

In my research, I have discovered many plagiarized works even going back to ancient Greece and Rome. Some of the ancient historians were world famous kidnappers.

Historian Will Durant reported that the major author of the Middle Ages Geoffrey Chaucer took material from others–2,730 lines for his finest single poem and thousands of lines from others!

Some slack is given the ancient plagiarists because of the circumstances of their day and because copyright was not known. There was no legal precedent for dealing with the theft of literary property.

In modern days, there is no excuse.

H. G. Wells authored A Short History of the World, The Outline of History, (written in six months!) and was the source of the famous radio drama War of the Worlds. He pilfered his Outline of History from Florence Deeks! Wells even passed on mistakes that Deeks had made!

Albert Einstein based his theory of relativity on Henri Poincare’s work but Einstein did not mention the man or others to whom he was indebted.

Famous historian Stephen Ambrose wrote Band of Brothers, and Crazy Horse and Custer, and award-winning biographies of President Eisenhower and Nixon. Seven of his books contained stolen material!

Another famous historian to backslide into plagiarism is former aide to President Johnson, Doris Kearns Goodwin; yet even after a revelation of plagiarism, the New York Historical Society gave her a $50,000 award for her book of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals! She was also named “American History Laureate” by the society! Such recognition from an historical society is shocking after the revelation that Goodwin did not reveal her use of other’s work in her book The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys. The fact that Goodwin is often seen on national television as an historical expert, as well as the award, makes her recognition even more egregious.

Martin Luther King, Jr., famous civil rights leader and liberal preacher, started stealing from the very beginning of his ministry. His Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University was stolen from another writer. The university investigated and found the charge valid but did not rescind his degree; however, they did pin a note to his dissertation noting the plagiarism. The staff of King Paper’s Project at Stanford admitted, “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings.” King continued to steal to the end of his life using purloined material for his sermons, speeches, and books. His “I Have a Dream” speech was taken from another black preacher who had delivered it at the 1952 Republican Convention!

Rev. Joseph Lowery, friend and compatriot of King defended King’s literary thievery by saying, “Preachers have an old saying. The first time they use somebody else’s work, they give credit. The second time, they say some thinker said it. The third time they just say it.” Oh, all right.

Jane Goodall is known for her conservation work and work with animals especially work with chimps in Tanzania. However, her Seeds of Hope: Wisdom and Wonder from the World of Plants (published in 2014) contained passages lifted from others. A writer at the Washington Post was the first to blow the whistle on her. The Daily Beast found further examples of literary theft. She blamed it on “chaotic note-taking.” Goodall’s book contained entire paragraphs from astrology sites and Wikipedia.

Former Vice President Joe Biden who failed a law school course for plagiarizing did not learn from his school days. Later, he stole from famous people like Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, and Jack Kennedy. You may remember that he had to bow out of his race for President in 1987 when it was discovered that he purloined whole pages from the speeches of others.

Alex Haley’s Roots: The Saga of an American Family is a mishmash of fact, fiction, and fabrication that mesmerized American television audience in 1977; however, it was presented as fact. The series won nine Emmy awards, a Golden Globe, and a Peabody Award. Haley also won a Pulitzer for it in 1977. He claimed to have traced his own ancestry back through slavery to a very specific individual and village in Africa. It was supposed to be a saga of multiple generations of Haley’s family from Africa; however, professional genealogists proved Haley’s research revealed, “In truth, those same plantation records, wills, and censuses cited by Mr. Haley not only fail to document his story, but they contradict each and every pre-Civil War statement of Afro-American lineage in Roots.”

When Margaret Walker Alexander, author of Jubilee, sued Haley charging him of taking passages from her book, the suit was unsuccessful. But when Harold Courlander charged Haley with literary theft from his book The African, Haley folded like a cheap suit and threw $650,000 at Courlander to send him back to the farm.

Following the trial, Haley acknowledged “that various materials from The African by Harold Courlander found their way into his book Roots.” Yep, they “found their way” into his manuscript!

Roots was based on the alleged kidnapping of Haley’s family from Africa but that turned out to be unreliable, and untrue and usually unreported; but Haley’s “kidnapping” of material from other authors was a reality.

It’s also very telling that when the media deal with Haley’s plagiarism, if at all, they never mention that a white author won a large settlement from a famous black author for plagiarism.

Plagiarists have always been with us and will be in our future.

Boys’ book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

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!