The Media are Beginning to Tell the Truth about Martin Luther King!

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a popular, persuasive, and polarizing preacher who has been scrutinized even criticized by his friends in recent years. The years after his death his friends in the major media censored most criticism of King but that is changing. It seems truth does matter to some; and since the facts of his life simply won’t go away, more sources are revealing the facts.

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.


Fact, Fraud or Faith?

by Don Boys, Ph.D.


Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Purchase Now from Amazon

Posted in: Liberals, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment () ↓

Leave a Comment via Facebook