Don Boys Common Sense for Today Sat, 12 Jan 2019 02:47:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The Media are Beginning to Tell the Truth about Martin Luther King! Fri, 11 Jan 2019 22:48:33 +0000 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.

]]> 0
Potty-Mouth Congresswoman Blasts the President! Mon, 07 Jan 2019 19:22:17 +0000 Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib, a Muslim, was sworn into office not on the Bible but upon her personal copy of the Koran (not Thomas Jefferson’s copy as reported) to make a positive statement about Islam’s place in U.S. history stating, “Muslims were there at the beginning.” She is wrong. Muslims in America during our first hundred years were as scarce as white dinosaurs in Kentucky except for some black slaves brought to our shores by Muslim slavers.

The newly minted congresswoman’s main problem was not one of history but one of hysteria: a foul mouth attack on the President.

The New York Times quoted Tlaib as saying, “People love you and you win,” Ms. Tlaib told the crowd. “And when your son looks at you and says: ‘Momma, look, you won. Bullies don’t win.’ And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t.’ Because we’re going to go in there, and we’re going to impeach the mother******.” It is incomprehensible that a mother would talk that way under any circumstances but to say it to her son is beyond shocking.

Tlaib promised a crowd of leftist supporters in a bar to impeach the President using the most filthy word possible. Such despicable action shows her to be crass, crude, and without class. Shockingly, some defended her profanity including the know-nothing Socialist, congressperson Ocasio-Cortez—who has just asked for a tax rate of 70% to finance her give-away-program. Various “entertainers” defended the profane outburst and the Washington Post editorially asked, “What’s so wrong with mother******?” The new flake in the Senate, Mitt Romney’s silence has been deafening.

I ask the question that liberals love to ask going back to the Army-McCarthy Hearings in 1954, “Have you left no sense of decency?” While society has degenerated immensely since that time, the question is pertinent. What has happened to self-respect, kindness, truth, self-control, dignity, politeness, and civility? Does anyone possess a sense of shame anymore?

The House leader Nancy Pelosi refused to reprimand the foul-mouthed Muslim saying, “I’m not in the censorship business.” Pelosi suggested that the backlash Tlaib is receiving from decent people is sexist. She added that what Tlaib said was “nothing worse than the president has said”; however, Trump has muffled his public profanity since becoming President.

There is no doubt that Trump’s foul mouth has contributed to this climate of vulgarity that has fallen on America like a noxious fog over a foul-smelling swamp. He used the same vulgarity in a 2011 speech about China but he was not President at that time. A small difference. But that is no excuse for her; after all, for centuries women have been held to a higher standard than men—justifiably so. Men seem to have crudeness coming out of their genes while women are by nature kinder, gentler, etc.

The fact is she used a foul word that is used by uncouth, unthinking, uncaring, and uneducated people. After sane, sensible people came down on her uncouth vulgarity, she reaffirmed her position. No apology. Maybe Muslims don’t apologize. To their credit, a few Democrats criticized her statement.

Even non-Christians should not use that and other vulgar words. A few years ago, even the most rude, crude, and lewd men did not use such words in decent company especially in the presence of women and children. Now, even women are using the terms. Yes, the times, they are a-changin’! For the worst.

And few seem to be blushing.

Listen to the average person on the street and you will hear the F word and many other vulgar words used repeatedly in a few sentences! Of course, they hear it at work, movies, on recordings, and on television. Even some preteens use cr*p, fa*t, frik*n’, etc., as if they are acceptable. Parents, teachers, and pastors are failing; and even some Evangelical pastors are known for cursing!

The New York Times wrote of one famous megachurch pastor, “He has the coolest style and foulest mouth of any preacher you’ve ever seen.” Some pathetic pastors see this as an accolade instead of a major personal failure.

But filthy talk is wrong whether by a preacher, politician, pundit, prince, potentate, or pauper.

My critics will accuse me of living in a religious bubble and that has been generally true for most of my adult life. However, that does not mean that I have no exposure to the real world with all its corruption. After all, I have traveled worldwide, shopped, dealt with businessmen, was a life insurance salesman, served in the Indiana House of Representatives (where I reprimanded the cursing wife of a Democrat judge in front of him and their legislative friends), and appeared on hundreds of television and radio talk shows where I was called many vulgar words that I had no idea of their meaning! So my “bubble” has not meant total seclusion.

All my close friends and associates are very kind, educated, cultured, refined, urbane, sensitive people who eschew “gosh,” “heck,” “darn,” although we do lose control at times and utter “cool” or “neat.” Gasp! Maybe we say “cool” to appear cool in the eyes of others!

I am not suggesting that people who use four letter words are living in the depths of depravity, although I am saying that such words are unnecessary, uncouth, untoward, and a poor example to others, especially the young.

Most people, who use the F word don’t know what it stands for. Yes, they know what it means but not the etymology. While there are differences of opinion in the background of the word, couples guilty of fornication during colonial times were placed in public stocks with the F word written on the wood stocks. The word stood for “For Unnatural Carnal Knowledge” and was used because there was not space on the stocks to spell out their offense.

Others tell us it meant Fornication Under Consent of the King, whereby he gave permission for married people to participate in sex. Of course, no king has such authority. Still others suggest that it stood for the king’s permission to diplomats travelling on long journeys so they could stop at any home and have sex with the eldest unmarried woman.

Obviously, whatever the actual historical derivation, the foundation was sex and it has usually been considered an obscene word. As such, it should never be part of anyone’s speech, especially that of a person of influence.

Whatever we say should be unambiguous and not be embarrassing or an insult to others who believe their yea should be yea and their nay should be nay. Vulgar (ever non-vulgar) curse words are never acceptable by civil, cultured, and concerned people.

The Apostle Paul commanded in Colossians 3:8, “Put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communications out of your mouth.” He also said, “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” Swearing results in a coarsening of society. Are you listening, Congresswoman?

If her momma is alive, maybe she could help correct past failure by washing out her daughter’s mouth with soap! That worked for thousands of us. How about it, Mrs. Tlaib?

And if her mother is not alive, there is always her husband she embarrassed with her filthy mouth. But then that’s another column.

As an afterthought, I wonder how many Christians are members of the Saudi, Pakistani, and Iranian governments. Just asking.

Boys’ Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! is now available. To get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
Mitt Romney Fired a Shot Over Trump’s Ship of State! Fri, 04 Jan 2019 15:57:38 +0000 A shot across the bow of a ship is a naval practice of firing a warning shot over another ship to inform an enemy that the shooter plans to fight so surrender might be considered. In non-naval parlance, it means, “I’m not to be messed with,” or a “desire to compete or dominate.”

Mitt Romney, just before being sworn in as U.S. Senator from Utah, fired a shot across the bow of Trump’s Ship of State. Mitt (the former liberal governor of the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts, failed presidential candidate, and now senator from Utah) fired his shot from an op-ed in the Washington Post in the December 24, 2018 online edition. He charged, “the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.” In a March 2016 speech, he called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Mitt exposed his internationalism when he said, “America is strongest when our arms are linked with other nations. We want a unified and strong Europe, not a disintegrating union.” No, we don’t need to be entangled with foreign powers but cooperate with them when our best interest requires it. It is treason to surrender any U.S. national sovereignty or authority or bow to any foreign power. In other words: America first!

Romney added, “Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay around the world.” No, Trump’s words and actions have caused dismay to the Globalists but delight to freedom loving and independent minded world leaders. I remind Mitt that Trump “copycats” have risen in Italy, Brazil, Hungary, Serbia, the Netherlands, Austria, and Poland, with populist stirrings in Germany, England, and France. Trump’s election and stand have caused political leaders in other nations to take a stand for their own nation, not the European Union. Such independent leaders who insist on putting their nation first keep the Globalists up all night with perpetual heartburn.

Since Romney has thrust himself into the spotlight again (and criticizing Trump guarantees him bookings on major television shows and op-ed opportunities), he has called attention to his own beliefs, actions, and character.

Romney is a Mormon which he has a right to be but we have a right and duty to question how his beliefs might affect his votes in the senate. After all, a member of Jim Jones’ cult would have to face questions about sexual abuse of women and children and the socialism (that turned out to be Communism). It would be irresponsible not to inquire into what a candidate believed if he were a member of the Jones’ cult. Of course, there was a big difference in the cult of Jim Jones and the Mormon cult. But a cult is a cult is a cult.

It would be negligent for citizens not to inquire into a candidate’s Mennonite religion since Mennonites are known for taking a stand against war. That belief could impact millions of people and the safety and future of America. So we will question how a Mennonite’s pacifism might affect America.

A Hassidic Jewish candidate for high office should be asked: “Since your religion forbids you to work or drive on the Sabbath, what would you do in event of a major domestic or foreign conflict when a quick response is essential? Will you be in the senate or the synagogue during a Sabbath attack?

It is unthinkable that a member of a Christian Identity Church, known for white supremacy views, would not be questioned about the church’s stand on Blacks and other minorities.

Normally, it is no one’s business what a candidate believes no matter how weird and bizarre the beliefs may be. It is not unconstitutional to be weird. That is obvious when one looks closely at the U.S. Congress. But it is germane if those bizarre beliefs might impact the nation. That is the issue.

The following Mormon doctrines demand some answers from Senator Romney:

Senator Romney, do you believe that one day you will be a god and if so, could that not be a dangerous concept to hold as a leader in the U.S. Senate? After all, a supreme being cannot make mistakes and is not answerable to any person or nation. When will you become a god? Is that process taking place at this time?

Do you believe that Kolob is an actual planet (star) where a day lasts 1000 years? Do you believe that God created many worlds that are inhabited? That could easily affect your attitude toward U.S. space exploration.

The First President of the Mormons is said to speak for God so would you be willing to refuse one of his commands that could impact our nation negatively?

Since Mormons believe “There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith,” how will that impact your votes dealing with religious freedom? If that silly teaching is true then what did mankind do before the Mormons erected their Temple in Salt Lake City?

Mormon founder, Brigham Young (who had 55 wives) believed that the sun is inhabited! That was the sun! Maybe that is the reason Young appeared to have a fried brain. He also wrote, “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, p. 269.) I assume Mr. Romney repudiates Brigham Young’s twisted theology.

They also teach that God came from Kolob (a non-existent star or planet nearest to God’s throne in Mormon mythology) to have sex with the Virgin Mary who became one of his many wives. This encounter resulted in the birth of Christ! Young wrote, ”When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1:50-51.) However, Matthew 1:20 quotes the angel as saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

Evidently, the Christ of the Bible is not the Christ of Mormonism. So, how can Mormons be accepted as a Christian group no matter what some loosey-goosey Evangelical leaders declare?

Glenn Beck spoke at Liberty University saying, “I am a Mormon, but I share your faith in the atonement of the Savior Jesus Christ.” But Mormons do not share the same faith in Christ. He also told the university crowd that Joseph Smith was a great man who died as a peace-loving martyr for Christ. Beck dipped his brush deep into the whitewash bucket to make that very positive but false statement about Smith.

Smith was a weirdo who believed that people living on the moon live for a thousand years! In 2008 I wrote, “Joe Smith allegedly saw visions and ‘found’ gold plates that he turned into the Book of Mormon. He defended having multiple wives and was visited by a non-existent angel. He moved west to form a communistic town to be named ‘Zion.’ He founded a bank that went belly up, was placed in jail, and killed by a mob.” Smith killed two men and wounded another before they killed him. I could have added that Smith had led a mob into town, destroyed a newspaper that had criticized him for his multiple sexual affairs, and burned the building.

No one doubts that the media would be all over a candidate who was a member of the Unification Church, Scientology, and other religious groups that have not been mainlined. Mormons have many commendable attributes including a healthy lifestyle, sincerity, family commitment, and dedication to what they believe, but they are still a cult, not as violent as some, but still a cult.

In recent years, Mormons have been accepted as “Christians” by many Evangelicals but then some Evangelicals also accept open borders, same-sex “marriage” and other ridiculous teachings. About a quarter of Americans are Evangelicals which would include a vast spectrum, although all would profess to believe and teach the Bible as the Word of God.

Romney was displeased and had a hissy when Dr. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas, was asked to pray at the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. It seems Jeffress is an old-fashioned Christian of the Baptist persuasion and believes “You can’t be saved by being a Jew,” and “Mormonism is a heresy from the pit of hell.” Well, does that surprise any educated person that a Baptist would believe that? People have a right to disagree with him but that doesn’t make him wrong. And even if he were wrong, that doesn’t make him a bigot. A person can be right or wrong about an issue and be a bigot, or not be a bigot.

Romney said, “He’s [Jeffress] said the same about Islam. Such a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.” Hold it! Is it prima facie evidence that one is a bigot if he believes something contrary to popular opinion? And if that were a demonstrable fact, which it is not, why should the “bigot” not be tolerated? Is toleration a one-way street? Moreover, a vast number of Americans are Fundamentalists or Evangelicals and many nonaffiliated people agree with Jeffress.

Mr. Romney, would you censure or restrict Dr. Jeffress or people like him in any way?

But to cut to the chase, if Romney is so quick to question the beliefs of Christian conservatives, then we have a right to call Romney’s beliefs into question especially since he is serving in the U.S. Senate. Or is it bigotry to ask plain, personal, and penetrating questions of a progressive?

Mr. Romney, since your church clearly teaches that it will someday take over the U.S. and the world and set up a theocracy under Mormon control, will you today disagree, disavow, and disassociate yourself from that teaching and do everything within your power as a U.S. Senator to oppose that purpose?

My follow up question: If you disagree, disavow, and dissociate yourself from that teaching, how can you stay a Mormon? Moreover, if you refuse to disassociate yourself from these teachings of your church, how can you expect any sane person to trust you since you refuse to keep your oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?

Mr. Romney, how dare you call Dr. Jeffress a bigot when he is in the mainstream of orthodox Christianity while you are a member of an outrageous cult. At least wipe the purple Kool-Aid from your lips before condemning a major, respected Christian leader!

Romney’s shot across the bow indicates that President Trump has another Flake in the Senate.

Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently. To get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

]]> 0
Trump is Right: It’s Time to Bring U.S. Troops Home! Sun, 30 Dec 2018 22:00:18 +0000 American troops are coming home from the Middle East and it’s about time. In December, President Trump promised to pull troops from Syria, and Afghanistan appears to be next. Almost half a million troops are still stationed in over 150 nations at an enormous cost to America taxpayers. A few of those troops are Marines defending our embassies in very dangerous locations. However, only a few U.S. troops meet the criterion of doing what is best for the U.S. They provide protection and revenue to nations that often resist U.S. efforts in the United Nations. Not too smart, especially if there is no actual benefit to the U.S. by having troops in foreign nations.

We have 300 troops in Norway, 250 in Ukraine, and 3,500 in Poland. A reasonable person asks, “Why are they there?” The Globalists tell us it is because of Russian aggression that everyone recognizes as a continuing and constant threat. But what can a few hundred U. S. soldiers do that Poles and Ukrainians cannot do for themselves? Obviously, their major role is to train, advise, and assist the natives, but how much training is required? Can they not train the locals who can then train others, permitting the Americans to return home?

Critics will scream, “Isolationism” but minding our own business is exactly what our Founding Fathers advised us to do. They wanted us to put America first! We should get involved with other nations only when our best interests demand it.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford told Pentagon reporters that the U.S. military has approximately 6,000 troops across 53 out of 54 countries in Africa. Why? How does that benefit us? Why can’t African nations handle their own affairs and if a nation needs help, there are more than 50 other nations on the continent to come to their aid. Who decided that America was the one to call? When was it decided? And upon what basis were we chosen?

About 70,000 U.S. troops are assigned to Pacific Command, with about 42,000 in Central Command, about 35,000 in European Command and about 10,000 assigned to Africa Command. These conventional forces are augmented by about 8,000 Special Operations Command troops stationed in over 80 countries on any given day according to the August 3, 2017 edition of Business Insider. In addition to those troops stationed on permanent bases, there are always thousands of sailors serving on warships deployed worldwide.

Many patriots will disagree with pulling troops out of Syria, mainly because of the possibility of the vacuum being filled by terrorist groups. There is also fear that the Kurds will be slaughtered for their support of U.S. policy and people. Our experiences in the Middle East prove that it is easier to send in troops than to bring them home—think, more than seventeen years in Afghanistan. We are spending 50 billion dollars per year in Afghanistan. That would build a very elaborate Wall along our southern border.

What is often forgotten is that President Assad was elected president of Syria in the nation’s first multi-candidate election in almost 50 years. Sure, he is a butcher but he has been tolerant of Christians and that’s better than lopping off their heads. If he is so undesirable, let the Syrians produce regime change.

A reasonable argument can be made for U.S. troops if a nation requests U.S. support but we have no right to go where we are not wanted. A small, struggling nation has as much sovereignty as the U.S., England, or France. Moreover, the U.S. is not morally or legally obligated to get involved in every beer room brawl, internationally speaking. We should only get involved in other nations if it is in our best interests to do so. Of course, in times of natural disaster, it is only humane to provide temporary support to suffering people. Nation building and regime change should not be options for our politicians. No one has built a legitimate case for the U.S. to be the policeman of the world.

Regime change happens one of three ways. The first way is when a nation simply fails as is happening in Venezuela before the world’s eyes. After years of dictatorship the violence, corruption, hyperinflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods has driven about 15% of Venezuelans to eat food waste discarded by commercial establishments. Another nation (maybe Cuba) will step in and prop up the government until it is sufficiently able to handle its own affairs.

Another case of change happens following a revolution as in the case of America (1776), Mexico (1910), Russian (1917), Cuba (1960), etc. Or the third kind of change could be a quick, surgical coup d’état that has made African nations infamous.

To our shame, the U.S. has been deeply involved in coups and attempted coups in Cuba when Kennedy tried to kill Castro and in South Vietnam approved the coup of Ngo Dinh Diem. Nixon sicced the CIA on Allende in Chile to topple him. Carter’s CIA engineered a coup in Iran that returned the Shah to power (who soon died of cancer) resulting in bringing to power the Muslim fanatic—the Ayatollah Khomeini. Reagan secretly and illegally supplied funds to anti-communists in Nicaragua and H. W. Bush was involved in removing Noriega from power in Panama. Clinton sent 13 cruise missiles into a Sudan aspirin factory to detract attention from his grand jury testimony (three days earlier) about his “inappropriate relationship” with a White House intern. George W. Bush attacked Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, charging him with developing weapons of mass destruction. Obama was involved in the removal of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

As is obvious, Democrat and Republican Presidents have exceeded their authority to effect regime change and they got away with it because the desired changes were usually what the Globalists wanted.

However, the U.S. has no business participating in, let alone organizing, financing, and leading such an enterprise. Regime change sounds better than overthrow of a nation, but there is no difference. If a nation wants or needs changing, the local citizens should be the ones who do it. When the U.S. has been involved, our CIA usually does the dirty work. And while all decent people might like the result, the means to achieve a change is often unsavory, unlawful, and untoward. We were thrilled that Saddam Hussein was removed in Iraq but America’s involvement was tawdry. Our efforts at regime change in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have not been successful and are we obligated to continue in that effort forever?

One does not have to be a political genius to realize that Middle East nations have no record of democracy. They are dictatorships, monarchies, and theocracies—all the opposite of freedom. All Muslim nations must look to the Koran for dealing with nation building. It is a fool’s journey when we expect to force freedom on people who have no concept of what it means as they look to a fanatic preacher down at the mosque for guidance in all things.

Nor has anyone built the case for the U.S. as the lender of first resort in times of national financial crises. The paramount question is what is best for America.

After all, don’t all Americans want to make America great again? Moreover, bringing half a million troops home and staying out of every foreign brawl would pay down much of our massive national debt.

When President Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. Troops, he crawled out on a limb and handed his enemies a saw. I hope he survives and stands for his convictions because the men who have moved the world have been men that the world could not move.

By bringing our troops home, Trump will make big progress in making America Great Again.

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

]]> 0
Trump’s Wall Will Produce Stability, Security, and Survival! Fri, 21 Dec 2018 18:55:58 +0000 Representative Roger Marshall (R-KS) shocked Americans recently on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when he said, “This border is all about national security. Every day, over 10 terrorists and 40 criminals try to cross that border.” Other officials have made the same statement.

Every sane person agrees that we must do whatever is necessary to keep bad people out. A wall, barrier, fence, hedge, railing, screen, paling, partition, barrier, barricade, or whatever you choose to call it will stop most of the bad guys. That will result in America’s stability, security, and survival.

It will also stop or slow down “good” guys who refuse to follow U.S. rules, regulations, and requirements to enter. Coming to America is not a right but a privilege: a privilege we choose to grant to those who will become a help not a hindrance.

Donald Trump has promised to build a wall on the southern border to keep drug pushers, terrorists, and tomato pickers from gatecrashing into America without following U.S. rules. Progressives (former liberals who lost the immigration debate and changed their name thinking none of us would notice) have resorted to ridicule but that is easier than addressing the problem.

Moreover, ridicule is the last resort of the dumb, the deceived, and the demented.

Walls have been used since the beginning of time for defense, privacy, and “to protect the people of a certain region from the influence or perceived danger posed by outsiders.” In fact, an ancient city without walls was an invitation for disaster. Walls discouraged some barbarians, delayed others, and defeated still others.

A well-fortified city with high, wide walls, watchtowers, and iron gates was a good guarantee of peace and prosperity, but never a panacea. The Psalmist said in 122:7, “Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces.” Who would want to live or start a business in a vulnerable city? A walled city offered security, stability, and sociality—even survival. People who lived outside walled cities were known as “pagans,” and were “rustic,” or “of or relating to the countryside,” and later were thought to be uncivilized or unenlightened people. Yes, I suppose if people chose to live in a violent, unprotected area, they would qualify as “unenlightened.” And dead.

In other words, thinking intelligent people lived behind walls, big walls if possible. So, today’s progressives such as Hillary Clinton live in gated or high-rise communities yet ridicule a wall on our southern border. Clinton’s New York mansion has a high, attractive wall. In many parts of the world, homes are commonly built surrounded by walls topped with wire or glass for protection. That is to keep them away from us.

The Pope lives in the Vatican, a walled enclave within the city of Rome, yet wants us to build bridges instead of walls.

Pope Francis, tear down that wall! And open your palace and the Vatican to the poor, oppressed, and those looking only to better themselves. Practice what you preach.

When Moses sent twelve men to spy out the land of Canaan, they returned and informed him of the conditions of the land. Most of them spoke of an incredible land of very large people living within walled cities. They spoke from exaggerated facts and fear, not faith. The spineless spies warned in Deut. 1:28, “the cities are great and walled up to heaven”–a slight hyperbole! They declared, “All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars.” They were saying, “Moses, you are a dummy if you think we can take those walled cities. We have no battering rams, no ladders, and no trees to provide the necessary siege instruments. Let’s go somewhere else.”

But the first walled city to be taken was Jericho, the “world’s first city.” Most people are familiar with the wall of Jericho that was miraculously destroyed to permit Joshua and the Israelites to conquer the city and the land. I have been to the excavation site of those ruins many times. It was a well-fortified city but it fell by faith, not by force because the walls of Jericho fell in obedience to God. The people within the city thought they were safe because of their protective walls; they were wrong. This is no argument for not building a wall.

It is an argument to prove that ancient people used walls to protect themselves, sometimes unsuccessfully, especially when God wanted the wall destroyed to bring judgment upon a people.

King Nebuchadnezzar II (reigned 605-562 B.C.) is famous mainly because of his association with the Hebrew prophet Daniel and his three buddies. Nebuchadnezzar built three walls around Babylon and one was so broad that a four-horse chariot could turn around on it. The Ishtar Gate in the wall was said to be more impressive than any of the Wonders of the Ancient World.

Herodotus the Greek historian declared, “Babylon surpasses in wonder any city in the known world” and said that the wall was 56 miles long, 80 feet thick and 320 feet high! That is higher than a football field is long! Even allowing for the usual exaggeration which afflicted ancient historians, it was a very high wall. There was a wide and deep moat that encircled the entire city. No wonder it was commonly believed that Babylon was impregnable. But no one told two Hebrew prophets and King Cyrus that “fact” and the city fell to the Medes and Persians—but the wall stood! A wall will not guarantee survival but it’s a great beginning.

Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and during its long history it has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times, and captured and recaptured 44 times. It is one of the oldest walled cities. The wall has been built many times but the rock foundation and a few rows of original Herodian stones can still be seen. The wall is less than 3 miles long, the average height is 39.37 feet, and the average thickness is 8.2 feet. The wall also contains 34 watchtowers and 8 gates. On some of my 13 tours that I have led to the Middle East, I took some of the group for a trek along the top of the wall to provide a different perspective of the city and its surroundings.

Even with the wall, the destruction of Jerusalem and Solomon’s Temple was accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. and the city and Herod’s Temple, also known as the Second Temple, were destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. The destruction in A.D. 70 was prophesied by Christ in Mark 13:1-2 when He said, “And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Note how precise He was in that not one stone would be left upon another. That was not poetic. Some of the Temple stones were 37 feet long, 12 feet high, and 18 feet wide. According to a PBS special, one stone weighed over 300 tons and they wondered if modern equipment could move such stones! It would take hundreds of men to move one stone but why would weary soldiers even try to do so after an exhausting battle?

The prophecy was fulfilled literally when the Romans completely destroyed Jerusalem and the temple buildings. One reason for the fall was the Jews were divided into three groups, even killing each other as the Roman Army was outside the wall! Rome prevailed and according to historian and eyewitness Josephus, the massive stones were moved by the soldiers, pried apart to collect the gold leaf that melted from the roof when the temple was set on fire. The city was taken after a four year siege! The prophecy was precisely fulfilled.

Like Jericho, Babylon, and Jerusalem, the walls did not guarantee safety but then there are no guarantees in life. You do the best you can to protect yourself; but to invite thieves, thugs, and terrorists with open borders is insane. Borders are biblical and reasonable and a wall is needed along our southern border.

The Great Wall of China with all its branches is 13,171 miles long extending east-to-west across the northern border of China and it was built to protect a nation not a city. And like city walls, it had a measure of success. It was built over the centuries beginning in about 221 B.C. to protect the Chinese against raids from nomadic groups from Mongolia. It was finished in the 17th century but fell into disrepair until recent years. The wall was also used to control immigration and permitted the imposition of taxes on goods that were transported along the Silk Road from Europe to China. When China extended its northern border, the wall became obsolete–except as a tourist attraction. It has four million visitors annually. The 2,500 watchtowers and garrison stations permitted watchers to send smoke signals to alert inland troops of approaching danger.

A modern myth has prevailed and is believed by most people that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made structure on earth that can be seen from the moon. But that is not true. Modern day scholars and scientists, as well as those who have traveled to the moon, have debunked this claim repeatedly but it is still often repeated.

But then there are many myths about walls that are espoused today in political discussion: we don’t really need a wall; a wall is an insult to our Mexican friends; a wall will not accomplish anything other than anger others; if people want in, they will get in; and at a cost of $25 billion, it is too expensive. Not if Mexico pays for it. Mexico has clearly and bluntly said that they will never pay for it but they will if America increases fines for overstaying visas and imposes a tax on every dollar sent to Mexico by workers in the U.S. About $20 billion per year is sent to Mexico from the U.S., usually by electronic transfer typically in about $300 amounts. Taking a small fee at the place of origin from each transaction will soon pay for the wall. After all, much of that money was never taxed.

Trump’s Wall, like the Great Wall of China, can be successful and provide a measure of peace and prosperity but it is not a panacea.

(This is an expanded rewrite of my article published a few years ago.)

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

]]> 0
The Ark Encounter in Kentucky is a Shocking Rebuke to Evolutionists! Sat, 15 Dec 2018 15:10:17 +0000 The “ark encounter” in Northern Kentucky is just that—an encounter. It is almost breath-taking in size and engineering. It is seven stories high and a football field-and-a-half long making it the largest wood frame structure in the world. It tells the biblical and historical story of a global flood in the days of Noah.

The stunning, world-class exhibits provide detailed explanations of how Noah and his family survived the global flood that destroyed the rest of the world. Moreover, there are explanations of how Noah could have handled the problem of feeding all the animals, removing animal waste, procuring water, and other daily chores that were required. Obviously, Noah and family did not sit around and sing religious songs day and night.

The human figures representing Noah and his family are more professional than anything I have seen in other museums. It seemed most visitors made comments to that effect.

It has a petting zoo and the Ararat Ridge Zoo that has exotic animals from all over the world—yaks, kangaroos, emus, and ostriches.

Critics tell us that such a massive job could not have been done during the early days of civilization because of the lack of tools, but they can’t know that for sure. No doubt, Noah hired local workers since it was a huge job. The ark was a “floater,” not one that sailed. It was about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and had three decks with a window around the top, and one door. That window provided the necessary oxygen and light for its inhabitants which is one of the trivial criticisms by modern critics of creationism.

The ark was equivalent to 522 standard stock cars as used by railroads! “Well, all right, so it was a big boat; but it wasn’t big enough to hold every variety of animals in the world, about 50 million species,” says an honest critic. Well, no one says it did! What Noah did was take two of every species of land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. He did not take every variety of dog, cat, etc.; but two cats, two horses, two dogs, etc., in the boat. Only one of the 200 plus varieties of dogs went along! That does make more room, doesn’t it?

On major talk shows, I have had evolutionists snicker about the ark and world Flood saying, “Wait a minute, are you telling me that more than 200 varieties of dogs came from one pair of dogs?” My reply is, “Yes, that is what I’m saying.” They continue to snicker and then I reply, “After all, you expect sane people to believe that everything on earth came from rocks and dirt!” My position is far more sensible, scientific, and scriptural than theirs!

Furthermore, Noah took with him very young animals; after all, there was no reason to take full grown elephants, bears, or apes. The smaller animals would be easier to handle, would take less space, would require less food and water, etc. The average size of animal in the ark was smaller than a sheep, so there was plenty of room in the ark with room to spare for living quarters, storage, etc. The size of the ark is not a legitimate criticism, but Flood critics continue to use it. It is interesting to note that in A.D. 1858, the largest vessel of her type in the world was the P & O liner Himalaya, which was 240 feet by 35 feet. The ark was much larger and had the proper proportions for seaworthy vessels. How did Noah know that thousands of years before shipbuilders developed the art of shipbuilding?

Flood critics have objected to the Genesis story of the ark and Flood because it is a perfect framework for what appears in the geological record. The world Flood is a much more reasonable explanation for the present condition of the earth than the fairytale of evolution, so the critics must protect their untenable positions by seeking to discredit the ark and the universal Flood. A world flood account, where only a few people survived usually after obedience to some “god,” is found in more than 200 different cultures. Of course, those stories were corrupted versions of the original Flood.

I have been told on talk shows that Noah could never have chased down all the animals and herded them into the ark, and they ridicule Noah chasing down vicious animals to capture them and to determine whether they were male or female. But of course, the Bible does not say that he did. Only uninformed Bible critics make that accusation. Genesis 7:9 records, “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.”

Genesis 6:20 promised, “two of every sort shall come unto thee.” So, the silly idea that Noah spent years searching for all the animals to place in the Ark is not supported by Scripture. Why is it so unusual for the animals to make their way to the ark at the proper time? After all, the salmon swim upstream to spawn even if they have never been there; birds fly south for the winter and back again in the spring; and there are numerous other incredible automatic responses from God’s creatures, which cannot be explained by the experts!

We are told that the Flood was not universal, that it was only a local flood along the Tigris River, because unbelieving scientists must never permit anything supernatural since then they would have to give an account to a personal God whom they have rejected, resisted, and refused for a lifetime. However, you don’t have to be too bright to realize that if it were only a local flood, there would be no need to build an ark! People could have simply climbed the nearest hill until the waters receded! Furthermore, it was God’s purpose to destroy a degenerate race, and His purpose could not have been realized by a local flood that carried off only a few thousand people. The local flood theory doesn’t hold water just as evolutionary mythology does not hold water.

World geology clearly supports a global flood. What happens when a fish or sea creature dies today? We have all seen the results: the body floats on the surface of the water or sinks to the bottom where it is devoured quickly by other fish. But the fossil fish are often found very well preserved in sedimentary rocks. Over large areas of the world, billions of specimens are found in a state of agony, but with no mark of a scavenger’s attack. Fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures have been unearthed in positions that suggest violent and sudden death. In fact, many entire skeletons of duckbilled dinosaurs have been excavated in a swimming position with the head thrown back as if in death throes. Evolutionists have had to scramble madly to explain why so many land animals died violently and suddenly in water, but the answer is simple: They were buried quickly in sediment of the waters during the universal Flood.

Remember that all creationists recognize the billions of fossils that have been uncovered; however, fossils do not come stamped with their birthday! Three questions arise: How old are the fossils? How did they die? Were they covered quickly or slowly? There are remnants of a worldwide Flood all over the Earth. Marine crustaceans have been found in the Alps, twelve thousand feet above sea level; hippopotami have been unearthed in England; and about twenty mammoths were dug up near the Neckar River in Germany. Hordes of dinosaurs, mixed with other creatures have been found buried together, all dying the same way. Evolutionists cannot explain that very unusual phenomenon.

Huge fossil beds have been discovered where billions of creatures’ remains were buried together. One such place is the Karoo Formation of South Africa that contains 800 billion vertebrates such as reptiles. And many of those creatures, when alive, did not share the same environment, yet they were buried together! Evidently, they had one thing in common: escape the Flood.

The world was covered with water; earthquakes rumbled from pole to pole; seaquakes disturbed the oceans and seas; violent storms whipped across the face of the globe and massive waves churned up violent whirlpools as lightning streaked across the heavens. (Noah and his family were safe inside the ark, built according to God’s plan.) During the year of flood, the churning water laid down sediment over three-fourths of the Earth. Only one-fourth of the world’s rock is volcanic rock. Proof that the Flood covered our highest mountains is seen in the sedimentary rock that covers those mountains. Sea fossils are found on all the mountains of the world! Furthermore, geologists have found a field of pillow lava on Mt. Ararat at the 14,000-15,000 foot level. Pillow lava is formed only under water! Any evolutionist can call me collect when he has a convincing non-flood explanation.

Evolutionists tell us that the sedimentary stratum were not laid in a short period of time, but over long ages lasting billions of years! However, geological evidence suggests otherwise. It is obvious to the unbiased person that massive amounts of vegetation were carried by swirling waters and dumped in various locations. Then, layers of dirt and mud washed over those lower layers of vegetation and were deposited followed later by another layer of vegetation. All this took place in a very short period of time.

The vegetation was pressed by the various layers of dirt and more vegetation, producing the coal seams in the eastern part of America and other parts of the Earth. Evolutionists deny the Flood (since it supports the Bible, and the Bible reveals God), but they can’t refute the evidence of the Flood.

Creationists and evolutionists don’t disagree on geology, but on the interpretation of geology. The critics of Flood Geology have a massive problem with the fossils found in the rock and coal strata. Often, upright trees are found through different seams of coal (that took millions of years to form according to evolutionists). A good example of this is found in the Craigllieth Quarry in England where an eighty foot tree was discovered that intersected up to twelve different stratum of limestone! How could a tree live millions of years so that the stratum could be very slowly laid around it? Why didn’t it rot as trees do today? Evolutionists are strangely silent.

The Flood in Noah’s day answers the major problems as to the geological condition of the Earth, but unbelieving scientists’ knees begin to jerk incessantly when an ark and a universal Flood are discussed. They would say the ark and universal Flood are too preposterous to be accepted as fact even by the ignorant folk of Noah’s day.

But, of course, the “ignorant folk” in Noah’s day missed the boat—just as the evolutionists today!

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

]]> 0
Saudi Arabia Has Never Been Great, is Not Great and Will Never be Great! Wed, 05 Dec 2018 23:00:22 +0000 Just so no one misunderstands me, I believe Saudi Arabia’s pious proclamations about wanting to bring the desert kingdom into the present century are nothing more than smoldering, steaming, and stinking piles of camel dung.

According to the Guardian on October 24, 2017, Mohammed bin Salman known as MbS has vowed to return the country to “moderate Islam” and has plans to turn the Kingdom into “an open society.” In fact, the Prince sees “a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions.” Well, many miracles happened in the Middle East but it will take a miracle, the Bible variety, to accomplish that with the Wahhabi fanatics in control. They will not convert from bigots, brutes, and bullies to calm, cordial, and cooperative religious leaders and go quietly into the dark night without taking a huge crowd of their opponents with them.

There are simmering, ongoing protests in Saudi Arabia that have not been publicized much in the U.S., but many human rights groups have been making noises for freedom of religion and expression in the desert kingdom. Most of the usually peaceful protesters demand equality for Shiites against the majority Sunnites. Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) was organized in 2008 to try terrorism cases, but human rights activists have charged that it has been used to prosecute Shia dissidents in the Sunni-dominated nation.

Some charge that the SCC is being used to crush the religious opposition thereby shutting down competitive mosques. Protestors have been charged with “breaking allegiance with the ruler” or “participating in protests,” or “providing moral support to rioters.” Hardly worthy of losing one’s head in Riyadh Plaza, also irreverently known as Chop-Chop Square.

The human rights group, Prisoners of Conscience, is an independent non-governmental group advocating for human rights in Saudi Arabia. They charge that at least 2,613 people, among them prominent lawyers, judges, academicians, and others, are currently languishing in jails and detention centers across the country.

The SCC sentenced prominent Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr and seven other men to death in 2014 for their role in the 2011 Eastern Province demonstrations and another 14 people in 2016 for participating in the protests. Saudi authorities executed al-Nimr and at least three other Shia men on January 2, 2016 when the nation carried out the largest mass execution since 1980, putting 47 men to death. Most of those executed recanted their confessions in court charging that they were threatened or tortured to force their confessions.

Without infringing on their national sovereignty, Trump and U.S. officials should pressure  Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to get involved and require freedom for Shiites and everyone else in the desert kingdom. Some politicians in Saudi Arabia and America would have us believe that all is as peaceful, prim, and proper as in the Realm of Disney. Of course, that is called Fantasyland. The November 30 issue of the Jerusalem Post reported that bin Salman had “reshuffled military personnel and assets inside the kingdom in response to rumors that some members of the royal family may have been planning a coup against him.” When the 83-year-old Saudi king points his toes skyward, we may see the always-simmering palace intrigue result in a succession of bloody, brutal upheavals so common with the Roman Emperors.

The desert kingdom is the world’s most advanced welfare state but socialism is always a failed system. About 70% of Saudis cannot afford to purchase their own home and 40% live below the poverty level; however, they get free health care and interest-free home loans. College education is free. Their nation is held together by workers from the U.S., Africa, Asia, etc. I have spoken to some of them and have been emailed by one oil worker who is a born-again Christian. He has to leave his Bible at home and any prayer and Bible fellowship he has with other Christian workers must be secret or he will be expelled from the country.

We have no right to interfere with any other nation because each nation is sovereign; however, we do have a right to buy oil wherever we please. And we can sure stop any foreign assistance, especially for their war on Yemen, and cease other incentives. If some U.S. politicians were not so determined to destroy our nation so a new, socialist state could emerge from the ashes, we would be producing all our needed oil from restricted areas in and near the U.S. While the U.S. cannot force any nation to comply with our demands, we can use our money, influence, and threats to pressure the Saudi barbarians to make changes now, not after a lengthy study, but now. No changes, no assistance, or cooperation!

A good start would be for Trump to require the Saudis to permit churches to be built in the major cities. After all, the U.S. has permitted about 3,000 mosques in our nation and about 80% of them are funded and controlled by, you guessed it, the extremist Wahhabi sect in Saudi Arabia! But we are told that we don’t have to fear them having terrorist tendencies. Yeah, a plane ride will make a major change in violent people.

The Saudi royal family lives in the lap of luxury in gilded, gaudy, grandiose palaces; and they speak of freedom but their handling of Fayhan al-Ghamdi, the “celebrated” Muslim television preacher (according to the Daily Mail) who raped, burned, tortured, broke the back, and killed his five-year-old daughter is sterling proof of their hypocrisy. The girl died after ten months in the hospital. The Muslim preacher was ordered to pay $270,000 “blood money” (to his former wife, the child’s mother) for his crimes; though, the fine would have been double if he had killed his son! However, after a world outcry he got 800 lashes and 8 years in jail. I’m not sure whether his television show was canceled. A social worker said the father had doubts as to whether or not his daughter was still a virgin! So, he raped her repeatedly! The social worker also said the child had been raped “everywhere” as reported by Huffington Post.

Maybe there could be something positive about beheadings in Chop-Chop Square.

Saudi law refuses to execute a man for murdering his children or his wife. Saudi laws reflect what the royal family and sharia law demand. Moreover, sharia is interpreted by Muslim scholars from the Wahhabi sect. Saudi fathers are permitted to sell their daughters as child brides without any fear of the law. Wife abusers are required to sign a pledge that they will not repeat the abuse.

Isn’t that revealing? They chop off heads for apostasy and blasphemy and chop off hands for thievery but for raping, torturing, and killing of a daughter you get eight years—if there is an international outcry. And wife beaters are forced to promise not to do any more wife-beating. They are actually forced to promise to be good boys although Muslim clerics on television instruct men how to beat their wives the proper way.

Saudi Arabia does not have specific laws to govern their people. Their only constitution is the Koran, and all judges must interpret it conservatively. Many regulations are not mentioned in the Koran so no one can count on justice. It is illegal to sell or wear anything red on Valentine’s Day; the mixing of sexes at malls and restaurants is forbidden; bacon, booze, and bikinis are banned; various jobs are forbidden to women; girls cannot participate in sports; thieves lose hands and often feet; and death for outed homosexuals. In trials, it takes the testimony of two women to equal that of one man and a non-Muslim’s testimony is worthless.

We will see if U.S. Muslim leaders, also living in the lap of undeserved luxury like their colleagues in Saudi Arabia, will use their influence to see that no other child is raped and killed by a Koran-quoting butcher-torturer-rapist-brute of a father who passes in a barbarian society as an influential and “celebrated” television preacher.

In light of the relevant facts, it is not too much to expect Muslim wannabe U.S. citizens to agree, adhere, and admit to a civilized lifestyle and repudiate the extremists everywhere who defend the right to molest, rape, and kill anyone—even their own children. Any Muslim who clings to his Koran while defending those brutes, like the imam who raped and killed his daughter, should be expelled from our shores. Many U.S. mosque leaders are extremists, beating the drums daily for sharia law which is used to condone such brutality. They cannot plead freedom of religion to justify brutality because Koranic Islam is clearly terror with a religious fringe.
The U.S. should put all Muslims who defend brutality and terrorism on ships and send them to the desert of their choice. They are a threat to our national security and the freedom of our nation.

Saudi Arabia is simmering with dissatisfaction, discrimination, and death. Trump must work with the royal family and Muslim fanatics but must always put America first—that must be done if America is to be great again.

Saudi Arabia has never been, is not now, and never will be great although it is a great place for goats.

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

]]> 0
Should the U.S. be Friends with Backward, Brutal, and Bloody Saudi Arabia? Sun, 02 Dec 2018 22:21:37 +0000 The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy—basically an inherited dictatorship. It is a backward, brutal, and bloody autocratic nation ruled by a royal family and Sunni clerics of the Wahhabi sect, the most extreme Muslims. That sect and the Saudis spawned Osama bin Laden and fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers. While there are many legitimate complaints against the Kingdom, it is a strong U.S. ally—supporter of Israel and enemy of Iran. So, the Kingdom can’t be all bad.

Furthermore, we don’t have to be their friend, only their ally, occasional colleague, and business partner. No one is forced, or even expected to love anyone. Everyone knows the Saudis are a bunch of goat herders who pitched their tents over a massive reservoir of oil. While that discovery in 1938 permitted the nation to no longer depend on religious pilgrims to finance them, they seemed to think that money, education, and the right connections could buy class, character, or courage. But, alas, that won’t work. Look at former (wow, I love to write that) President Obama as a primary example.

Religious zealots have been calling the shots in the Kingdom for decades, so no synagogue or churches of any kind are permitted in the nation. And while the minority Shia Muslims are permitted, they are also persecuted and prosecuted. As with all oppressive governments, it doesn’t like to have its crimes revealed in the media; consequently, almost 3,000 peaceful protesters (mostly Shiites) are in Saudi prisons at this time.

But it got worse this fall.

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi was a Saudi citizen who lost favor with the ruling family and got a job writing for the Washington Post from which he continued to harangue the desert kingdom. On October 2, 2018, he was brutally murdered and dismembered at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul by agents of the Saudi Government. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, known as MbS, has been fingered as ordering the killing. The Washington Post concluded that the Prince was the culprit but President Trump opined that the CIA had not verified that accusation.

Even if MbS ordered the murder, it should be remembered that the U.S. deals with many unstable, unsavory, undemocratic politicians and rogue nations such as North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, and take your pick of any Muslim nation. And the worst example in history is when Uncle Sam and Winston Churchill crawled into bed with Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union to whip Germany, Italy, and Japan.

President Trump has been criticized for his measured response to the killing of Khashoggi but his critics (not the fairest and brightest in the world) forget that Trump must make decisions based on what is best for America. Khashoggi was not an American nor was he killed in America; moreover, while the murder cannot be justified, it must be remembered that the U.S. has killed people all over the world for decades! Of course, American presidents and CIA Directors would say, “We never killed anyone who didn’t need killing.”

Last month a new book revealed that the CIA conspired with the Mafia to have Fidel Castro assassinated during the height of the cold war. It is just standard operating procedure for many nations that the media moguls and Trump-haters seem to forget.

Whatever, Khashoggi is dead. He was an outspoken critic of the Saudi government and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. While that makes him suspect, he did have some worthwhile comments on the Kingdom that others have championed. For sure, he didn’t deserve to be murdered. Moreover, the royal family should be recognized as a national pariah and U.S. officials should hold their noses when they are forced to deal with them. U.S. officials should not sit around a table, smiling and treating them like gracious gentlemen instead of bloody criminals. They should, when necessary, meet, greet, and retreat with no bowing, kissing, or handholding as previous U.S. Presidents and diplomats have done. (Obama bowed to the Saudi leader; George W. Bush held hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah during a walk on his Texas ranch and even received a kiss from the Prince.)

The ruling family in Saudi Arabia is the House of Saud consisting of about 10,000 princes (and many thousands of princesses) who are guaranteed prestigious jobs whatever their abilities. They own most of the valuable land and live a royal life of leisure, laziness, license, and luxury, all financed by the purchase of oil. Saudi Arabia produces 25% of the world’s oil and with those funds they sponsor, support, and give succor to the Muslim extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The U.S. has looked the other way while the Saudis have supported the Taliban for decades.

Plus, the Saudis founded, financed, and fashioned 80% of U.S. mosques! They also support the rebels in Syria and have demanded the resignation of Assad, Despot of Damascus. This is an example of hypocrisy since Saudi Arabia restricts all public protests and freedom of speech and religion yet they demand human rights in Syria!

Did I mention that the Saudi royal family consists of sanctimonious hypocrites? It seems to be in their DNA as is goat herding.

For the last three years, Saudi Arabia has led a coalition of nations in a devastating war with Yemen, its southern neighbor and fellow Muslim nation. (More than half the population is Sunni with about 43% Shia. The remainder consists of various religions including a few Jews. The coalition includes the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Morocco, Sudan, Jordan, and Egypt with logistical support from the United Kingdom and the United States. Human rights groups report that millions will starve because of the war and a naval blockade. The United Nations says Yemen is on the “brink of the world’s worst famine in 100 years if the war continues.”

In November, The Hill reported that the U.S. Senate “issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen’s civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.” History (and the media) will reveal how successfully, if at all, the U. S. is able to extricate itself from a war it should never have been involved with—just as the seventeen-year war in Afghanistan.

With thousands of princes standing in line waiting to get the final nod from King Fahd as his successor before his toes point straight up, it seems Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman got the nod; but anything could happen in the coming power struggle for the throne. The media reported on November 30 that a coup is in the making against the Crown Prince. The November 30, 2018 issue of the Jerusalem Post headlined: Saudi Arabia’s Bin Salman Takes Preemptive Action Against Coup Threat.” Saudi Arabia has reportedly “scrambled its military amid warnings of a coup to topple Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.” One report revealed that a “recent interview with an exiled Saudi Prince claims a royal coup is being prepared.”

None of this is a surprise since the monarchy is notorious for cunning, collusion, corruption, and criminality. U.S. officials have covered their bets by courting the friendship of Prince Bandar, former Ambassador to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. The Prince has been friendly with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and very chummy with George W. Bush.

No one can be sure who the next king of Saudi Arabia will be. Moreover, no one can be sure the length of his reign. The kingdom’s own version of the “night of the long knives” could be a reality with numerous possible heirs to the throne being killed or exiled.

The U.S. Government should issue an ultimatum that not one more barrel of oil will be purchased from Saudi Arabia (they are our second largest foreign supplier) until they step out the 7th century into the 21st century. The royal family consists of prissy princes who shop for clothes in London and New York, sip wine and gorge themselves at famous restaurants in Paris, and romp on the beaches of the French and Spanish Rivera while at home they pretend to be sincere Muslims and the Muslim Wahhabi fanatical clerics pretend to believe them to be sincere!

I say, “A pox on both the royal family and the Muslim fanatics,” both of which are responsible for a reprehensible system that permits a barbarian judicial system. No more U.S. oil purchases from them. They can pour their oil over their pancakes and eat it, and while it may not be as tasty as French food, it will be considerably less expensive, and they won’t have to put up with arrogant French waiters.

Rich, rapacious royals walk a tightrope between themselves and fanatic Muslims. The royals have to pretend to go along with the fanatics since those fanatics (bodyguards, cooks, servants, etc.) could take out the royals any day of the week. The House of Saud is so resented and hated by the Saudi people that the hatred has brought some responsiveness between the two main Muslim factions who hate each other: the Shiites, and Sunnites.

Resentment by the hard-working (and many non-working) poor of Saudi Arabia would be normal especially when former King Fahd was spending $5 million a day while he and his entourage played on the Spanish Riviera.

Moreover, Muslim fanatics hate all Muslim political leaders who are hypocrites. Major former leaders of Muslim nations such as Mubarak, Assad, Hussein, Arafat, and Gaddafi were MINOs (Muslim in name only) with an occasional photo-visit to the local mosque. Those leaders always had all the liquor they could swill, all the tobacco they could smoke, and all the prostitutes they could fit into a stretch limousine.

Those Muslim political leaders thought they would be entertained in Paradise after their demise by 72 green-eyed virgins. Don’t think so.

The brutish, brash, boorish, barbarians in Saudi Arabia should get the message that the U.S. will deal with them when forced to do so but they are not our friends and we don’t trust them even when they quote the multiplication table.

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

]]> 0
Desperate Scientists Incensed at Creation Museum! Fri, 23 Nov 2018 21:39:33 +0000 The theory of evolution has been watered and manured for over a hundred years by incompetent, insensitive, and irresponsible scientists who have lost their ability to blush, but some young earth creationists in Kentucky have put them under a very public microscope. And evolutionists are blushing big time—and are angry.

Evolutionists have had their knickers in a knot since Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, announced his intention to build a state-of-the-art, 27-million-dollar creation museum in Northern Kentucky near the Cincinnati Airport. It was opened in May of 2007 as knees began jerking in every secular university in America—left ones of course. Those evolutionists (believers in freedom, fairness, equality, and civility) did their best to kill the very ambitious project.

The necessary funds were given by generous Christians and no tax dollars were used to keep their doors open. That can’t be said about thousands of other museums across the nation. The typical U.S. museum derives “just over 24 percent of its operating revenue” from local, state, and federal sources. Most of them are non-profit so they don’t pay any property taxes nor do they pay any taxes on their revenue.

The Creation Museum did get some concessions from the county as a quid pro quo for bringing millions of tourists to the area.

God haters, evolutionists, and general commentators tried to excel each other in their negative comments about the creation museum. One called it “Ken Ham’s fabulous fake museum,” while another dubbed it the “Fred and Wilma Flintstone Museum.” Of course, Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education, had to add her two cents calling it the “Creationist Disneyland.” Eugenie is an avowed atheist whom I debated on the “Pat Buchanan Show” while promoting my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? During that show, Pat and I applied enormous pressure and she reluctantly admitted the slight possibility of a supernatural Being. She may deny her confession but I have it on tape. I hope that revelation doesn’t cause her to lose membership in the American Association of Atheists.

Others were positive in their assessment. Jonathan Gitlin said the museum’s displays were “on a par with the better modern museums I’ve been to.” He added that the museum was “designed for a fundamentalist Christian crowd” and was “no friend to those who do not hold to its creationist tenets,” also containing “what can only be described as a house of horrors about the dangers of abortion and drugs and the devil’s music.”

Ham and his crowd were not fearful that the truth might offend someone. After all, if children are taught that they are only advanced animals then why not act like animals? But some will argue that that is indoctrination but then does anyone suggest that evolution is not indoctrination?

Another critic called the museum “an impressive and sophisticated visual argument on behalf of young Earth creationism and a highly politicized fundamentalism.” Hemant Mehta said that the “layout at the Creation Museum really is beautiful. However, the quality of information is worthless, which makes the ‘museum’ nothing more than an expensive way to confuse and indoctrinate children.” Mehta is a flaming atheist and hater of the Creation Museum.

Whatever the critics may think of the museum, the taxpayers in Northern Kentucky seem to be pleased. In 2015, the Creation Museum and AiG were recognized on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s list of top 100 workplaces in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region. The assessment was made based on a confidential survey of employees conducted by an independent research firm.

We visited the museum recently and were delighted at the accuracy of the content and the class with which it was done. That may be the reason for the left’s antagonism, anger, and attacks: evolutionists would not be so belligerent if the museum were done in a shoddy way with mediocre displays, misspelled words, and gaudiness. The critics simply can’t abide Fundamentalists or Evangelicals with class.

Ham and his crew tell the story of life starting with the Seven C’s of History: creation, corruption, catastrophe, confusion, Christ, cross, and consummation. The accompanying displays support that story based on true science and the Bible.

I have not seen any critic attempt to disprove the museum’s message since they cannot do so. They do attack the museum with arrogance, anger, and absurdity since they don’t have the answer to evolution’s major problems.

In various debates, I have asked evolutionists some questions and have not had any answers. Wonder why. It is rather simple. There are some hurdles that evolutionists can’t jump and when they occasionally try, they trip over them. In fact, they usually don’t even try. My simple questions:

• Tell us that you do or do not believe the unsupportable, unscientific, and unlikely—even outrageous teaching that nothing created everything. I promise not to laugh out loud–maybe only a snicker or two. And don’t try to flimflam common people with scientific jargon, but make your points in clear English. Do you really believe that nothing created something and something created everything?

• Tell us how all the natural functions such as gravity, inertia, the First and Second Laws, laws of planetary motion, etc., began. How does a natural function evolve? If they did not evolve, where did they come from?

• Did the formation of those natural functions (now identified as scientific laws) precede or follow the Big Bang? What was the facilitator?

• Can you provide any example of an explosion resulting in order?

• Tell us how life first formed on a planet made up entirely of rock. All atheists want to sit down beside Darwin’s warm, little pond and watch the first forms of life but I demand we go back much further than that.

• Do you, or do you not, believe in spontaneous generation? No honest, informed scientist will agree to that irrational fable!

• Where are the ancestors of insects?

• Explain the Cambrian Explosion: why do all the fossils in the lower level of the Geologic Column appear in their final form with no fossils indicating a transition from lower to higher creatures?

• Why are meteorites not found in ancient rocks? Could it be because the universe is not that old?

• Tell us how men and women evolved at the same time in history at the same location? What if “early man” had been all male?

• Which evolved first, the mouth, the stomach, the digestive system, or the elimination system? What good is a mouth if there is no stomach or a digestive system and what good are the three without an elimination system?

It would be interesting to have an evolutionary “expert” (anyone with a briefcase, a goatee, a cheap suit, and tenure) to provide answers to the above.

But I won’t hold my breath.


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

]]> 0
Ancient Jews Can Teach Trump How to Become Our Greatest President! Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:48:25 +0000 I am thinking the unthinkable—Donald J. Trump could become the greatest, most important, and most effective U.S. President!

Donald Trump was legally elected President of the United States in 2016; however, he has been threatened, libeled, maligned, ridiculed, and now threatened with impeachment! Democrats simply refuse to take yes for an answer. Trump has made himself a good target in that he often speaks without thinking, frequently nauseatingly brags about his ability, and never admits a failure. But he is still the president.

President Trump, with all his flaws, has the potential of becoming the most effective and best president of the United States! Yes, quite a statement but his incredible achievements of cutting regulations, lowering taxes, supreme and lower court appointments, and moving our embassy to Jerusalem are a preview of greater things to come—unless he is impeached.

He can consolidate his power, increase his popularity, and advance his program if he learns from ancient Jews.

King Solomon expanded and ruled over the United Kingdom of Israel, a huge empire that stretched from the Mediterranean Sea (the western border) to the border of Egypt (southern border) and to the Euphrates River (the eastern border). It extended north to beyond Damascus and possibly to the Assyrian Empire. Solomon’s empire, like all the great empires of Asia down to the time of the Persians, consisted of a group of small kingdoms, all ruled by their own kings who admitted the suzerainty of the Jewish monarch, and paid him “presents,” i.e., an annual tribute.

While King David fought constant battles, his son Solomon only fought one battle, but there was no reason to fight because of Solomon’s wisdom and the empire’s impressively natural growth, the empire expanded and had peace for forty years. “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, from Dan even to Beersheba, all the days of Solomon.” Archaeologists of the minimalist school doubt the extent of the United Kingdom as depicted in the Bible—even suggesting that it was only a small tribal entity and David and Solomon were mere ruffians in royal robes. However, other archaeologists think recent evidence supports the Bible.

Solomon reigned over all Israel, and one would think he had done enough to secure his reputation and the monarchy to his family for many generations; and yet he was barely cold in his grave before ten of the twelve tribes of Israel rebelled against his son King Rehoboam. All Solomon’s great achievements—his wisdom, his wealth, his writings, his works (massive building program)—were now dismissed if not forgotten. However, no one could dismiss or defend his religious apostasy in his later years.

When Rehoboam ascended the throne, he refused to follow the advice of his elder counselors to lower the excessive and oppressive taxes of Solomon. Consequently the United Kingdom split like a ripe watermelon with ten tribes becoming Israel in the north taking most of the land and the population and Judah in the south that contained Jerusalem and the Temple. The two kingdoms coexisted uneasily after the split until the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel by Assyria in about 722 B.C. Judah lasted until 597 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in what is known as the Babylonian Captivity that lasted 70 years.

After the split, there was never peace between the two separate nations; no reconciliation was seriously attempted. In fact, the Hebrew writer said, “And there were wars between [King] Rehoboam and [King] Jeroboam continually.”

Trump sure knows about that.

Lessons to be learned by other leaders are legion if the leaders are teachable—a major problem for most strong politicians—including President Trump.

While Rehoboam refused to lower taxes, he responded rightly when he fortified his principal cities. The division of the kingdom was a reality, and he had to make the best of it. He wisely strengthened his frontiers against the encroachments of the army of Israel; and Jeroboam did the same thing on his part to prevent the inroads of Judah. There is a time to fight and a time to defend and build.

Trump must defend and build. After becoming convinced of the rightness of his cause, he must pursue it as a matter of principle. Just as there was no moral equivalency between Israel and Judah, there is no moral equivalency between the leftist Democrats and Trump Republicans.

Trump must take the same approach the kings of Judah took. He must accept things as they are and go from there. Like Rehoboam, he must fortify and build the cities and build a strong military since there is peace in strength. Solomon had failed to strengthen the military and the cities since it was a time of peace. Trump has about half the nation and all the Democrats at war with him plus, much of the world is his critic.

When Judah became strong with fortified cities with protective walls, the surrounding nations including the Philistines brought the king presents, and tribute silver; and the Arabians brought him flocks, seven thousand and seven hundred rams, and seven thousand and seven hundred he goats.

Trump must continue to keep his commitments to his friends and his foes. Everyone must know that he is trustworthy. Our enemies may not like us, but they will respect, even fear us. The Democrats and RINOs must know the same thing about Trump’s determination.

Trump must be careful about his alliances with the wrong people and nations. One king of Judah got involved with a wicked king of Israel who wanted to take land that did not belong to him. That alliance, based on a dubious purpose, almost caused the death of the king of Judah. The plan was wrong. The person was wrong. The purpose was wrong. Trump must not make a similar mistake but follow the advice of Washington and Jefferson who warned about entangling alliances. Without being isolationists, we must seek to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to our direct self-defense.

One very good king of Judah was reproved by the prophet and the reproof was just and the reasoning fair, and all intended for his good, yet the king became angry with the prophet for telling him of his folly. No, it was more than anger. It was rage. A wise man, and yet in a rage! Trump must be careful not to make the same mistake made by this good man. Everyone is wrong at times and when proved wrong by Democrats or his friends, Trump must be willing to learn from his failures.

One king of Judah was mocked and laughed to scorn yet he labored on and “did it with all his heart—and prospered.” Judah’s king “built a wall” which Trump must do to secure our southern border and because it was his major promise. Failure to build the wall may be the chink in his armor that could kill him politically. With a split congress, it may be impossible to finance a wall, but if Trump doesn’t go to the mat to get it done, it may destroy him.

A few courageous kings of Judah took on the LGBTQ crowd of that day. If Trump is willing to take on the LGBTQ lobby he would become America’s best President. Some will say, “America’s dumbest President.” He must realize that it’s better to be despised for the right than to be praised for the wrong. He should not be swayed by flunkies, family, friends, or foes and he must announce, “There will be no special treatment of abnormal sexual activity. LGBTQ people are covered by the same constitution as everyone else. They will not be treated as a special group. And no one will be forced against their will to support another person’s chosen lifestyle.”

Judah and Israel, both weaker after separation, could have done well if they had put principle above partisanship. They failed and within a few years, both were taken into captivity. Will Trump learn something from ancient Israel or is he not teachable? Historians will inform us.

Winston Churchill opined, “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” The president should look back, far back to ancient Israel as an example for leaders during very difficult times. The Canaanites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Amorites were vile, vicious, and vindictive people who make Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer look like a Gospel quartet.

Some leaders of ancient Judah were men who moved the world of their day because they were men that the world could not move. I hope Trump does not permit leftist Democrats and compromising Republicans to dissuade him from greatness because America needs a strong leader who is resourceful, determined, confident, trustworthy, honest, and willing to learn from past successes and failures.

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

]]> 0