Martin Luther King, Jr.: The Bombshell the Media Refuse to Handle
By Don Boys < >
The world media, except in the U.S., are awash in the depressing, deplorable, and disturbing revelations about Martin Luther King, Jr. David J. Garrow, King's friendly and liberal official biographer, revealed up to 45 sexual encounters by King and the observation of and encouragement by King of the rape of a church member by her pastor — all supported by FBI surveillance tapes.
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 susceptible to blackmail. He also had a longtime 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. Joseph's]. 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."
Evidently, Martin didn't get her point and continued to fornicate.
Standpoint, where the original article appeared, reported that King "preferred to perform unnatural acts on women." Such an evil mind 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 speechwriter, ghostwriter, 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, and his admission of being a Marxist. All of it is 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, the 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 for the reference to King's "devout Christianity, his devotion to Christ." Rush was in the ballpark 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. 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 that 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." Thinking people will ask if there should be a national holiday for him in light of his 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. The next year, the same thing happened. My conservative friends in the House said 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 woman-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's concept that "a man must not be honored above the truth" is applicable here.
By Don Boys < >
The world media, except in the U.S., are awash in the depressing, deplorable, and disturbing revelations about Martin Luther King, Jr. David J. Garrow, King's friendly and liberal official biographer, revealed up to 45 sexual encounters by King and the observation of and encouragement by King of the rape of a church member by her pastor — all supported by FBI surveillance tapes.
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 susceptible to blackmail. He also had a longtime 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. Joseph's]. 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."
Evidently, Martin didn't get her point and continued to fornicate.
Standpoint, where the original article appeared, reported that King "preferred to perform unnatural acts on women." Such an evil mind 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 speechwriter, ghostwriter, 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, and his admission of being a Marxist. All of it is 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, the 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 for the reference to King's "devout Christianity, his devotion to Christ." Rush was in the ballpark 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. 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 that 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." Thinking people will ask if there should be a national holiday for him in light of his 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. The next year, the same thing happened. My conservative friends in the House said 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 woman-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's concept that "a man must not be honored above the truth" is applicable here.
