CSTNews

I have done an "honest" report on King because I did my homework and have no reason to distort facts. You have bought into the perverted left’s distorted, unproven slander that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dressing homosexual. Evidently you don’t know the basis for that false accusation, and I’ll bet you don’t want to know! You correctly stated that Hoover kept files on various politicians (who by the way were very wicked men, i.e. Jack Kennedy, Bob Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, etc.) You state that Hoover created files and used them to blackmail politicians. What an outrageous statement. Even non-thinking liberals don’t make that charge. He did try to pressure and control some politicians and I don’t support all of his actions. But your ignorance is outstanding! So is your naiveté.

But Hoover is not the issue. Martin Luther King is the issue. Well, not exactly, because his correct name was Michael King. Did you know that he lived his whole life as a lie? His name was never legally changed. In fact, during King’s boyhood he was known as “Little Mike” and was called "Mike" by his friends into the 50s!
 
But that is not the issue either. King’s lifestyle, character and theology are the issues. It is astounding that you "jumped the gun" and came to King's defense without getting informed. Christians, especially preachers are to "prove all things." Obviously you did not do so before writing me.
 
Surely you are aware of the FBI tapes that prove much of the sexual activities of King and his pack of political parsons. Of course, the left claims that Hoover was to blame; however, the man in charge of the FBI tapes, William C. Sullivan (Assistant Director of the FBI) was a liberal and King supporter! He said, “I was one hundred per cent for King…because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black People in their desire for civil rights.” Then  he heard hours of vile orgies (some paid for by tax-deductible funds!) of King, Abernathy, etc. Those tapes would gag a maggot! But evidently you are not disgusted. But then you are probably totally uninformed about the legally procured surveillance tapes. Yet you jumped to King’s defense because you have been brainwashed by a liberal education and the media. You obviously don’t think for yourself.

You asked, “Do you honestly feel better, at this late date, in trying to smear the name of Dr. King?” Note what you did: You came charging to the defense of a rogue preacher and charged me with smearing him! Why would I seek to do such a thing? What is in it for me? For the most part, I have to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged but uninformed people such as yourself. You see Bill, I believe truth is important, and I have no fear of it. I determined many years ago to pursue truth even if it leads to the back door of my mother or my best friends. Can you understand that? And in my pursuit of the truth I don’t want to appear self-righteous or unkind.

Again notice your further approach and attack on me: “Is your world so bad that you have to work so hard to destroy those memories; [of King] just to make yourself feel bigger?” Did it ever occur to you that I didn’t just fall off a turnip truck and might know what I’m talking about? Did you think that since I am a Christian that maybe you should check your facts, giving me the benefit of the doubt, before assuming that King deserved a defense? Since you don’t know me, don’t you think you made a mighty leap when you accused me of unfair, unchristian, and ulterior motives by tearing down King to make myself look better.

Then you wrote: “Do us all a favor; drop this strange vendetta.  It serves no purpose; and it does do harm.” Since when is it a vendetta to publish the truth? Evidently you don’t know the definition of “vendetta” and I won’t provide it since you will more likely learn the meaning if you “look it up” for yourself.  And of course it does serve a purpose to expose and rebuke evil. And what harm can it do to reveal the truth? What you don’t want is to have the object of your worship tarnished anymore than he has been.

You did admit that King had “faults” but that is a copout since everyone has “faults.” How do you defend, explain, or justify King’s “faults”? 

King was not even a Christian since he clearly did not believe in the deity, virgin birth, and resurrection of Christ.  But you didn’t know that did you? If you had done your homework, you would have discovered that. I assume you don’t argue with the Apostle John about those who don’t abide in the doctrine of Christ. Or do you? You might even agree with Jackson, Young, Hooks, etc., that King was “the only spiritual genius America has produced.” 

Furthermore, never once in his public life did King (or Jesse Jackson) challenge people to repent of sin and trust in the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sin!

King was an incredible adulterer as the FBI tapes prove. His “best friend” Ralph Abernathy also admitted King’s (and his!) immorality. But then you probably never read or are not aware of Abernathy’s And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. You probably don’t know that King admitted his adultery to Parade Magazine.  According Abernathy, King’s last night on earth was spent with two women and then he fought with a third! Some civil rights hero. Some Baptist preacher!

Lest you think I am totally dishonest let me provide a quote from Newsweek magazine of January 19, 1998, page 62: “That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex—including King’s cries of ‘I’m f------ for God’ and ‘I’m not a Negro tonight!’ ” I wouldn’t have trusted King to walk my dog!   But you are so concerned about his “memory!”

King was a bisexual and his statement to Ralph Abernathy during an orgy was so vile that I will not even suggest what he called Abernathy and what he [King] wanted to do to Abernathy.

King’s involvement with Communists during our battle with them in Southeast Asia is well known and I will not elaborate on that; however, I would like to hear your justification of that activity when even Life, Readers’ Digest, New York Times, etc., took him to the woodshed for his un-American, very pro-Communist accusations.

King was an unabashed plagiarist. When you quote him, you have no idea whom you are quoting. Some of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech was plagiarized from black preacher Archibald Carey who delivered it at the 1952 Republican National Convention. King’s Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University was stolen from a white liberal by the name of Dr. Jack Boozer. (Yes, that is his name.) The King family and King worshippers now admit that King stole pages and pages from other authors and used them as his own.

Yes, King had “faults” as you call them. I will not take time to deal with his other “faults” such as drinking, smoking, vulgarity, using SCLC funds  (tax deductible) for prostitutes, etc. I deal with all this and much more in my lengthy King report that I sent to Pastors around the world in early February. If you want one, it will cost you five dollars since I think you should have to pay for your ignorance

I eagerly await your reply but I suggest you get informed before you crank up your computer. Of course, you could always resort to attacking me for my “hatred,” “bigotry,” “unkindness,” “close-mindedness,” etc. You might deal with King’s murder (which no sane person defends) and a couple of good things that accidentally resulted from his activities, but those things are not relevant.

How can any honest Christian defend and honor a man with King’s credentials? Blacks have a tendency to quickly hug to their bosom anyone who seems to defend “black” issues and promote civil rights, and while that is understandable, it is not right. I don’t know any white Christian who would even consider defending Ted Kennedy even though it is possible that in his long political career, he did something right. Can’t think of anything  right now, but he probably has. Race should not matter. We must make decisions on a person’s character not his color.

Bill, you have permitted yourself to be snookered by the left. I challenge you to prove all things and think for yourself. Forget about being loved by the loony left and make decisions based on principle. I expect you to write me back saying that you really appreciate my information and are sorry for jumping to King’s defense and jumping on me. I am holding my breath.

Again, I must emphasize that King is the issue, not Hoover. Hoover, no doubt, had many problems, but he was right about his assessment of the danger of international Communism. Of course, he put most of his agents on that menace since he was convinced as most informed people were that we were at war with totalitarian Communism. If our Constitution was undermined and our freedoms lost, then the issue of organized crime is relatively unimportant.

You referred to Newsweek's "slander" of King, but that is simply not true. The tapes are real. The orgies were real. The drunkenness was real. The plagiarism was real. His doctrinal heresy was real. His adulteries were real. Note that you did not deal with any of those solid, factual issues.
 
You question what good is done to reveal the information about King. Bill, I am interested in truth. I'm interested in history. It is pathetic to see Christian schools and churches honoring an unbeliever who was a moral leper. It is pathetic to see Blacks worship at his idol in total ignorance. Don't we have an obligation to truth?

You wrote of me dragging King's name through the mud, but you don't understand. King did that himself. My desire is to tell the truth so people can come to an unbiased decision about the value of his life and work. I would also like to see his holiday revoked. 
 
You suggest that I let Hoover and King "rest in peace" but they are not resting in peace. According to the Bible they are both in an eternal hell. There is no doubt about King's eternal destiny and little doubt about Hoover's.
 
It staggers my mind to discover any Christian, no any honest, decent person, who would defend King's incredibly wicked life. Surely you know that many black leaders were critical of King because they knew the truth about him. However, those leaders did not get much media coverage since King was untouchable.
 
If the charges against King are truthful, how do you justify your defense of him? I should think you would gag as Americans praise and applaud him. If someone suggested a national "Civil Rights Day" or a "Booker T. Washington Day" or "George Washington Carver Day" I would support it.

You are wrong when you suggest: “The only way that you or I can say, for certain, that something is ABSOLUTELY true --- is if we have personally witnessed it ourselves.” That is not true. King admitted his adultery because he was often away from home 27 days per month. As to the plagiarism, I have compared pages of his work with previously published works. He did not take thoughts or sentences but many pages even including the original author's errors!  As to his doctrinal heresy, I have read his papers and confirmed, without question, that he did not believe in the deity, virgin birth and resurrection of Christ. That should be all that is needed to mark him. Uninformed, impressionable people read what he has written and swallowed it not knowing he was an unbeliever. How many thousands has he led astray because of his Very Special Status?
 
You suggest that just because King never gave an altar call, that is not significant, but think that through: Would any concerned Christian not take every opportunity to tell people about the saving power of Christ whenever it was possible? With all his interviews and public speeches, he never used the opportunities to challenge men to accept Christ. He often spoke about "love" but love without truth is heresy.

I have done hundreds of talk shows on numerous subjects such as AIDS, homosexuality, death penalty, porn, Islam, evolution, etc., and I always look for a chance to get the Gospel in without being inappropriate or unethical. I like the liberal media paying me to come to New York or Los Angeles to beat them over the head with the truth--whatever the subject!
 
Your defense of King's stealing from other authors was most gracious but unreasonable. When songs are taken and used as did Hank Williams' use of "I Saw the Light" that was only a song. King, in an academic setting, writing a Ph.D. thesis, took pages from another author! He did the same with his books and his speeches. You suggest that King took a sentence now and then. Not so. He often took pages from others. That is called thievery.

You are correct in that we cannot know for sure about a person's personal salvation. However, we can say: Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe in the doctrines of Christ so unless he trusted Christ before that bullet ripped through his body, he is in hell tonight. That has been the orthodox Christian position for 2000 years. It has been that because the Scripture clearly teaches that. Anyone who does not believe that is a universalist.
 
No, I cannot say that I personally witnessed King's wicked life; however, I do have a photo of him sitting with known Communists at a Communist training school. I do know that some of his supporters have heard the orgy tapes and were disgusted by King's vulgarity and hedonism. I do know that his best friend Ralph Abnernathy admitted in his book that King had many affairs. I do know that his longtime followers admitted that he drank, smoked, and abused women. In light of the above, it is very unreasonable to give him a pass. It is not gracious to give him the benefit of the doubt; it is being irresponsibly gullible.

I will say this Bill: If I ever in my senility, am caught running naked down a hotel corridor after a woman (as did King) or am caught on tape making the most vulgar suggestions to a male friend, I hope you will come to my defense as you have done for King! I earnestly pray that God will remove me before I get to such a state of senility. King was not senile; he was sinful.

You are correct is saying that there is no doubt that secularism humanism is the foundation for most of our problems; however, I seem to get the impression that you think that any battle with a “child of secular Humanism” is futile and a wasted effort. You said, “My friend, keep your passion!  Let it burn red hot!  But, channel it toward winning the war --- not just a battle.” If we are ever going to win the war, we are forced to fight some battles. I think one battle at a time. 

I am pleased that we agree on a national “George Washington Carver” Day since he discovered the peanut from which peanut butter is made. We agree on that. And the guy who added chocolate to peanut butter should be made President for Life!

Tags: blacks, martin luther king jr, racial problems