"Martin Luther King, Jr.: Whitewashed by Radical Leftists!"

[Ronny Koch]

When tyrants take control of a free society they always do two
things: they take guns from everyone and rewrite history. They
make the tyrants into national saviors and turn those opposed to
tyranny into thugs. This rewriting of history is happening as I
write. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been reworked, repackaged,
and remade into a secular saint by desperate people who can’t
argue the issue on its merits but must stoop to manufactured
mythology.

Recently, 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 being told
since Stone planned to deal with “issues of adultery, conflicts
within the movement, and King’s spiritual transformation.” It is
incredible that honest people do not demand the truth, however
unpleasant, about their heroes. It seems that those who lean
left are basically dishonest people who will do anything to
preserve their myths. King’s family and other leftists are still
white-washing his image; after all, big bucks are involved as
everyone knows who has dealt with King’s family.

Since this is a national holiday, in the interest of truth, I
present the following incontrovertible facts about King. My
readers can then decide if I’m a racist or a realist interested
in truth.

King was a pinko: King’s very liberal biographer, David J.
Garrow, wrote: “King privately described himself as a Marxist.”
The Rev. Uriah J. Fields, King’s secretary during the early
stage of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, wrote, “King helps to
advance Communism. He is surrounded with communists.”

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,
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 major 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 his adultery and betrayal of his marriage
vows and ordination vows acceptable–maybe even commendable!

An AP article should be a knockout blow for those who worship at
King’s image with its heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a
Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat.’” That was followed with 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.

Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter
to Senator John P. East of North Carolina in which he stated
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 that there was 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.”

Martin was a prevaricator: The head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover,
said that King was the “most notorious liar” in America and also
said that “King is a tom cat with obsessive degenerate urges.”
King also lied about his name all his life; 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 than whites. Hoover
was right.

King was a plagiarist: King stole from others all his lifetime
as was supported by King’s people in Atlanta! “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 man, therefore played
the game.

In his seminary papers, King reproduced the research and
writings of others but he also incorporated their many errors,
grammatical as well as theological!

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.” He other papers King denied Christ’s virgin birth and
vicarious death and visible return of Christ. Martin Luther King
was an unbeliever! He was a phony preacher and 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 are conservatives
playing this game of whitewashing King’s reputation? Obviously,
truth is unimportant.

To sum up: There is no argument. As usual, I’ll be accused of
racism but it’s only the facts. 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.

http://gbctroyny.com/mlk.html