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.

Churches are supposed to be the moral compass of this nation but the churches have lost their way. Most of the mainline denominational churches are led by educated fools who are afraid to make any definitive statement about anything. Well, they surely are definite in stating that what churches taught 50 years ago was too much controversy, conflict, and control. Almost all modern pulpits disperse fluff, foolishness, and falsehood.

Most denominational churches could be turned into bowling alleys with little harm done to the moral climate of America. Even Fundamental and Evangelical pastors often deliver a muted message and have refused to deal with erring (sinning, but that’s so quaint) members. Thieves, fornicators, liars, gossips, drunks, absentee members are seldom dealt with by their churches–even churches that boast of being Bible-teaching! Is that stupid or what?

The public school system takeover started many moons ago by John Dewey (died 1952), a humanist philosopher and educator. He has been aided immensely by pathetic facsimiles coming out of Colombia, University of Chicago, and other left wing institutions. Children are often taught by tenured teachers who are dumb as a bag of hair as they often graduate students unable to read or write a check. Is that stupid or what?

We now have activist professors from the wacky 1960s whose brains were fried on drugs pitching a leftist agenda to shallow, silly, and shiftless youth. Many graduate without knowing anything about life or how to make a living. They sit around in their “safe places” demanding that no one challenge their silly beliefs foisted on them by morally and academically bankrupt professors. Leftists have touted women in combat yet males and females are so fragile that they can’t handle the hearing of contrary views!

Moreover, “dangerous” words are “forbidden” by the thought police from stinging their sensitive ears. Words that are not approved, appropriate, or acceptable are “American,” “homosexual,” “illegal alien,” “Caucasian,” “mothering,” “fathering,” “foreigners,” “elders,” “senior citizen,” “overweight,” “speech impediment,” “dumb,” “sexual preference,” “manpower,” “freshmen,” “mailman,” “chairman,” etc. And now we are told that their “education” will be free, a euphemism for taxes extracted from hard working taxpayers. Is that stupid or what?

After every mass shooting (but not the multiple daily shootings in Chicago) there is mass hysteria among the gun grabbers who try to pass as sensitive, thoughtful, bleating hearts. They tell us they do not want to ban all guns but no sane, honest person believes that. Some fools even use the Bible to defend the indefensible but guns are a lot like parachutes; if you need one and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again! They tell us America should “beat [our] guns into plow shears” but if we beat our weapons into plow shears while the descendants of Mau, Marx, Lenin, and Hitler still live, we are fools and will become dead fools. Is that stupid, or what?

We have been amused by wealthy, low-life, no-talent entertainers with the morals of an alley cat. They are paid astounding, absurd, and abusive amounts of money to infect society with promotion of drugs, barnyard living, filthy lyrics, and anti-American, leftist propaganda. Is that stupid or what?

We have heard the caterwauling from baby killers for decades as they present their case for baby killing although they call it abortion. They even refuse to make it legal to save the life of a fortunate baby who somehow survives the doctor’s attempt to kill it! They tell us, with a straight face, that the baby is not a baby until he or she pops out of the womb so it is permissible to kill the innocent one on the same day he or she would be born! That is baby killing! However, the abortionists have been converted to crony capitalism (but only in this instance) and are now selling baby parts harvested from aborted babies, courtesy of Planned Parenthood and American taxpayers! Is that stupid, or what?

We have listened with bated breath to sociologists who told us that children will be warped, even twisted if they are made to do chores, clean their rooms, speak respectfully, eat what is put before them, stay in school, and do their homework. And it would be catastrophic if their little bottoms are thumped from time to time for rebellion so we let them develop like wild animals and we are surprised when they act that way. Is that stupid, or what?

We listened to the strutting sissies for 25 years telling us that they were “born that way” as they tell us that love is love no matter who or what it is. And they pretend that the Bible teaches such balderdash! So, it is all right if they love the same sex or two or three of the same sex. Or, if they love someone who is not male or female at least not permanently. In fact, recently, they have put normal people on the defensive for suggesting that if same sex activity was perversion in every culture and nation and religion then it is still perversion today–no matter what Obama, Hillary, or Dr. I. Will Tryanything teaches. We are expected to believe and advocate that it is normal and desirable for two (or three) of the same gender to be married. Thousands of years of civilization, culture, and Christianity are regretted, rejected, and ridiculed. Is that stupid or what?

We always thought our borders should be secure and only immigrants having something to offer America should be accepted as citizens. We especially thought no sane person would defend the unlimited influx across our border by undisciplined, uneducated, and uncultured barbarians determined to kill us and establish a world caliphate. If people crossing our border were white, home schooling, creationist, Christians, Obama would use the marines to control the border. We are told that the “refuges” are not barbarians but are simply refuges from tyranny. Those who demand a strong border and stringent vetting and no immigration for a few years are said to be ignorant, insensitive, and intolerant. Is that stupid, or what?

We are told that Muslims worship the same God as Christians only with a different name and there’s really not that much difference between the two religions. Let’s see about that. Muslims do not believe that Christ is God; He did not die on the cross; He did not rise from the dead; the Bible is not the very Word of God; Muslims should be killed if they leave Islam; men can have four wives who can be beaten at times. Muslims take time from beating their wives to pick up their welfare checks to finance their desert lifestyle. Is that stupid, or what?

We are told that mankind (or womankind, if you will) has been wrong since the beginning of time in identifying a male as a male and a female as a female by their genitals. It has been decided by “experts” that an obvious male can have a female living inside and he must be true to himself (herself) and assert his/her true self. We are supposed to believe that poppycock, even though it simply doesn’t work. Kids who try to adjust to the opposite gender are troubled, sick, and suicide prone. But we are supposed to applaud, appreciate, and approve their “courage.” Is that stupid, or what?

A lie doesn’t become truth; wrong does not become right; and evil doesn’t become good because it is accepted by the majority.

I’m not suggesting we send out a posse to corral all stupid people and jail them. Maybe we could simply remove all labels from every item and the problem would work itself out. You know, like on chain saws, “Do not grab blade while it’s running.” Or, a Superman costume contained the warning, “Wearing of this garment does not enable you to fly.” It’s really a tragedy because stupid people don’t realize how stupid they really are–because they’re so stupid.

If I offended you by calling you stupid, I’m really sorry, but I thought you already knew!

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.

King stole from others all his lifetime. The scholars of the King Papers Project (a group of scholars appointed by Coretta Scott King to edit King’s papers for publication) confessed: “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings….We found that instances of textual appropriation can be seen in his earliest extant writings as well as his dissertation. The pattern is also noticeable in his speeches and sermons throughout his career.” That from King’s supporters!

The editors of The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers state that “The failure of King’s teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable….” Note the spin: King’s stealing the work of others is “textual appropriation” rather than plagiarism, thievery, purloining, etc. But it does sound better doesn’t it. That publication was an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc. that included Coretta King!

While King was a student at Crozer Seminary, he wrote an essay titled, “The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God” and he took his material for the essay from the book The Finding of God. He gave no credit for the pirated passages. Another paper “written” by King soon after entering Boston University was “Contemporary Continental Theology” and was largely taken, stolen, purloined, etc., from a book by that title by Walter Marshall Horton.

That King often took freely from other writers was revealed because of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University. His dissertation was “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman,” and over half of it was stolen! King found a similar dissertation by Dr. Jack Stewart Boozer a former army chaplain and later Professor of Religion at Emory University who had returned to Boston University to earn his Ph.D. King even copied mistakes from Boozer’s work “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God”! But don’t rely on me, read what a Boston University investigatory committee concluded in 1991. “A committee of scholars at Boston University concluded yesterday that Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation, completed there in the 1950s….
BU provost Jon Westling accepted the panel’s recommendation that a letter be attached to King’s dissertation in the university library, noting that numerous passages lacked appropriate quotations and citations of sources.”

However, they did not recommend that his degree be revoked! Wonder what would have happened if his name had been Bill Smith? It is normal at most universities that a plagiarist such as King would at least be temporally suspended with a notation on his permanent record and he would fail the subject.

The report further said that there were “numerous instances of plagiarism” in King’s graduate work. We now know that 66 percent of his doctoral dissertation was stolen. He took page after page of material from other writers and claimed it as his own! They also said that the university did not give him special treatment because Blacks and Whites had been failed from the program. Then why did King get a pass? I also wonder what happened to his doctoral committee and his faculty advisor. The same professor who was supposed to read and pass on Boozer’s dissertation was King’s advisor. Maybe those professors really don’t read all those dissertations!

Even the King Papers Project had to admit that King was a thief, well not in those words, but they did say, “Our discovery of extensive plagiaries in King’s academic papers affected every aspect of our work….” The Project stated “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings.” (Emphasis added.)

The Project discoveries came to light in 1988 but were sat on until they were finally forced out by the media. The London Telegraph on December 3, 1989, published a story dealing with King’s plagiaries so the kitty was out of the sack! On November 9, 1990, the Wall Street Journal broke the story (softly and carefully), and in January of 1991 Theodore Pappas blew the lid off in Chronicles of which he was managing editor. The New York Times, the New Republic, the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, the Washington Post and others had the story, but refused to publish! Wonder why?

During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I submitted a column on King’s plagiarism, however, they refused to publish it, the only column of mine they refused. I had read the story in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips to the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe I had the facts or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story in the U.S. So, their competition broke the story.

The original response of Boston University officials is very interesting and revealing. President Jon Westling sent a letter to Chronicles (published in the January 1991 issue) denying that King was a thief! Westling said King’s dissertation had been “scrupulously examined and reexamined by scholars,” and that “not a single instance of plagiarism of any sort has been identified. . . . in any of its 343 pages.” Westling was attempting damage control realizing that BU could become PU if they gave King special treatment or if they were simply incompetent in recognizing his thievery. Even after everyone knew Westling was “truth deficient,” Boston University refused to revoke, recall, or repudiate King’s “doctorate.”

Gerry Harbison was a professor of chemistry at the University of Nebraska and admitted that “King’s thesis was anything but original. In fact, the sheer extent of his plagiarism is breath-taking. Page after page contains nothing but direct, verbatim transcriptions of the work of others.”

The King Papers Project also admitted that King didn’t stop stealing the material of others after he shook the university president’s hand and grabbed his Ph.D. in his left hand. His book, Striding Towards Freedom had whole sections taken from Agape and Eros and Basic Christian Ethics!

It is now known that King plagiarized portions of his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, his “I have a Dream” speech, and his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” The close of his famous “I have a Dream” speech was plagiarized from black preacher Archibald Carey who delivered it at the 1952 Republican National Convention! King’s books were written by others but he got the credit and the cash.

So how did the radical leftists and King worshippers explain King’s propensity to steal the work of others? Well, they dallied, denied, and distorted the facts. Various King defenders, with a straight face, suggested that King was only doing what Blacks do. That is a slander of all black scholars. Others called his thievery by such labels as “borrowings,” “voice merging,” “resonances,” “intertextualizations,” and “ghost writing.” Ghost writers are common but are paid for their original work, although I can’t understand why a man would put his name on a book that he did not write.

Associate Professor of English at Arizona State University Keith D. Miller opined in his 1998 book Voice of Deliverance that King’s plagiarism was really “blending,” “alchemizing,” and “voice merging.” I wonder if Miller would give his students a pass like that, and if so, what does that say for scholarship at that university?

Of course, honest people know King’s defenders were  defending a castle in ruins. Or to change my metaphor, Humpty Dumpy had fallen off his wall and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put “Humpty” back together again.

We are told that it is not fair to attack King (how about “expose” King?) since he is dead and can’t defend himself. Well, isn’t it strange that liberals can attack Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, and other leaders back to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson although they can’t defend themselves?

Most liberals are the most untruthful, unfair, unreasonable people in the world.

(Much of this column was excerpted from Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! Available at amazon.com. for $3.99.)

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

Liberals demand that vile perverts be permitted to teach in schools but vocal Christian teachers should be gagged! Homosexuals and lesbians should have access to the classrooms, but Bible Christians must never mention Christ nor should teachers keep a Bible in the classroom or read it during free time!

Most liberals tell us that any kind of filth must be permitted at state universities, but conservative school newspapers must be banned and the editor and reporters suspended from school.

Liberals become apoplectic when Christians and conservatives demand that vulgarisms in textbooks be cleaned up, yet the liberals rewrite the Bible and other literature to excise words such as husband, wife, manhood, mankind and manhole cover. It is now personhole cover!

Windbag liberals told us it was good to boycott South Africa (before a Communist became president) but it is wrong for us to boycott Red China, Red Korea, Red Vietnam, and Red Cuba or Radical Iran! However, it is not too bright to feed a buzzard (of any species) determined to pick out your eyes.

Liberals don’t have any tears for one and a half billion people in China with its slave labor, forced abortions, two-child limit, and no majority rule, but weep copious tears for baby seals, yellow belly sapsuckers, trapped whales, and fur-bearing animals.

Liberals tell us that rightwing dictators are corrupt (have you noticed that all rightwing dictators are always corrupt, while leftwing dictators never are?) and the right-wingers should never be encouraged by the U.S. Government, but left-wingers are to be encouraged? So the American government has been kicking our friends and kissing our enemies for more than 40 years! Not very bright, is it?

Liberals tell us Hitler was a monster (and he was), and he is always called a right-winger, but the fact is Hitler was a socialist! In fact, we have a presidential candidate who is an unabashed socialist! Most people don’t know that Nazis were members of the National Socialist Party. While Hitler was a bad guy, Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Company were simply misunderstood choir singers (who murdered over 100 million people)!

Folks, it is time we recognize our enemies as our enemies and stop playing “footsie” with Communists in North Korea, China, Cuba or Vietnam. We have been playing the dangerous, disastrous and deadly game of “Let’s Pretend to Stop the Communists” while we support their economy with trade and gifts. Is that treason or only stupidity?

It’s always interesting to ask a liberal to name 10 things wrong with America, and watch him smack his lips and go down his “laundry list” of complaints. Then ask him to provide 10 things wrong with Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or South Africa and watch him gulp, snicker nervously, and then excuse himself as he slips into the restroom to wash his sweaty hands.

We must remember that communists can always be trusted to be communists, and keep in mind that communism is not dead, although it has appeared to be rather puny until Putin flexed his muscles recently. And keep in mind that appearances are often deceiving.

Liberals sometime talk of patriotism; however, when they hear songs such as “America,” “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” “Stars and Stripes Forever,” and slogans such as “Better Dead than Red,” “America, Love it Or Leave It,” they get as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes.

Those Bozos of the Busybody Roundtable have preached for 60 years that Washington, D.C. is the Fountain From Which All Blessings Flow, have helped murder more than a million babies each year, helped produce an astronomical crime rate by pampering criminals, and have relegated generations to slavery via a welfare system that is nothing less than plunder of working citizens.

These members of the League of the Willfully Blind tell us that children should hear all sides of an issue since ideas cannot hurt them; however, that does not hold true when creationism is taught in the public schools!

So where is the ACLU when they are needed to correct an injustice? They are busy writing news releases about their dedication to fairness, equality, and the American Way. Hypocrites! (It’s always fun to remind them that their founder was a Red.)

Lest I seem to be biased, let me assure all that liberals come in all varieties: Democrats, Republicans, and Independents with Democrats being dishonest (and hopeless), Republicans being deceptive (and helpless), and Independents being disordered (and hapless).

Sanctimonious liberals are divisive, dopy, and dangerous people and they are the enemy to good government and common sense.

Boys’ new book, The God Haters was published by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of The God Haters click here. An eBook edition is also available.)

White students at Maryland’s Towson University want to start a White Student Union but are being opposed by bigots who are very supportive of their Black Student Union and similar groups. But not one for Whites! The organizer, Matthew Heimbach said “We want to replicate what every student union does on campus.” He pointed out that Blacks promote their heroes (usually those from the far, far left of the political spectrum) and the white students want to promote their heroes (hopefully those who were decent, productive, and balanced).

College officials are stonewalling! We have seen this before and it amazes me that Liberals cannot see their double standard and sheer hypocrisy. Of course, the ADL has crawled out of their cave to scream “bigotry” at those white students who want the same thing other groups have!

Why is it commendable for Blacks, Hispanics, and others to loudly proclaim their ethnicity, but when a white person does so, everyone treats him like a bigot? Recently, I saw video of a young Martin Luther King Jr. who declared, “I am proud to be black. Black is beautiful. Someone needs to say it.” Why is it right for King to say it about being black but wrong for Heimbach and me to say the same thing about being white? I will expect an answer from my critics.

Non-thinkers/racists/Liberals are now defending their racism by calling Heimbach and me racists! That’s like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath! Not too swift but no one says racists/Liberals are very sharp or honest people. They are fanatics and totally committed to their radical agenda.

This is an issue that no one wants to deal with–the proverbial elephant sitting in a formal living room and everyone pretends it isn’t there! While I don’t want to be identified with the white supremacist crowd or the clowns of the KKK, I do think it is not only right but also desirable to be proud of our heritage–whatever our heritage is.

My being proud of being a white Christian does not reflect badly on those who don’t fit that description, and my love for my wife and family and my considering them the best does no harm and is no criticism of others who don’t agree. Just because you think your wife is more beautiful than mine and your children and grandchildren are the brightest and most loveable does not make you a bigot. You are simply wrong, since mine are! Most sane people would agree that that attitude is completely normal. It would be abnormal if that were not true.

Blacks, Indians, Latin Americans, etc., should be proud of their race, after all God made them that way. So would you mind if I believe that Whites should feel the same about being white? I hope the racists out there will forgive me for pointing out that white Christians (along with some scoundrels) came to this continent and discovered a land of forests, swamps, and tribes of warring Indians. There were no roads, no businesses, no churches, no hospitals, no airports, and no factories, and not one Chick-fil-A! Our ancestors drained the swamps, built log cabins and churches, planted crops, dug copper, coal, gold, and silver from the ground, built railroads, attempted to civilize the warring Indians (and made friends of the friendly Indians) and established a land of freedom and incredible opportunity like nowhere on earth. My critics will point out the mistakes and excesses which I am willing to admit; but I will add the many failures of the Indians and others, proving mankind’s fallen nature.

Justin J. Moritz, a white, retired police officer, with no criminal record was refused a patent for “White Pride” by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it “is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.” There is no justification for the USPTO to reject a patent for “White Pride” after approving Black Pride, African Pride, Asian Pride, Chippewa Pride, Gay Pride, Indian Pride, and many other “prides.” Can anyone defend such offensive policies and obvious discrimination? Only a racist would defend such a practice and only a fool would try.

I have defended minority people and groups all my life. I have demanded that people be treated like people. If all people are treated with respect, kindness, thoughtfulness, and graciousness, then everyone benefits. I do not endorse or support the NAACP because they are racist in seeking the benefit of “colored” people. Why not seek the advancement of people? Need civil rights leaders be reminded that the “Jim Crow” days are long gone? If we seek the advancement of everyone, that will cover Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Indians, etc.

All my adult life I have detested unfairness, discrimination, narrow mindedness, political correctness, and cowardice. I am ashamed to say that national and state politicians, plus those in academia and the media, plus many evangelical Christians are guilty of all the above.

If sanity, fairness, and common sense prevail (BIG assumption) then Matthew Heimbach will get his White Student Union.

But don’t count on it. Liberals in academia don’t major on sanity, fairness, and common sense.

Copyright 2013, Don Boys, Ph.D.

Left-wing liberals are bad news for any nation while informed conservatives are a bright spot in a dark, dismal, and decadent day. That spot is brighter when those conservatives are Christians. Now, I’m not suggesting that all liberals are socialists, communists and traitors; some are only stupid, while others are simply bigots. They often have a religious zeal for old idealistic schemes (that have been discredited for many years) which they hold on to with the zeal of a Muslim fanatic.

Liberals are perhaps best known for their inconsistency. They weep copious tears over clubbed seals in Newfoundland, but never shed a tear over butchered babies in murder mills. They march, yell and hold rallies for convicted killers on death rows while their victims lie silently in their graves—with no chance to protest a knife in the back or a bullet in the gut. They spout “academic freedom” one day and the next they refuse to permit conservatives to speak on their campus!

Liberals, who appear to be soft hearted when they are really soft headed, dig into the pockets of the productive to provide for the parasites. Jesus said that the poor would always be with us, but He did not say that workers should provide for the shirkers. Relegating the poor to generations of beggary (because of generous welfare) is not kindness but fraud, folly, and foolishness.

Most of the accountability for the negative things that have happened to America can be placed at the feet of liberals, but they don’t want to take “credit” for illegitimate births, venereal disease, welfare, crime, public education, deficit spending, etc. And when conservatives place the blame where it belongs, liberals whine, whimper, and weep about our unfairness! (A liberal accusing a conservative of unfairness is like a skunk accusing a rabbit of having bad breath.)

I have been attacked for my responsible militancy, usually by preachers—preachers who wear silk underwear and have lace on the edge of their shirts. They sniff French perfume from silk handkerchiefs, strut like sissies and strike a pious pose as they speak of pluralism and broad-mindedness.

Such men are as useless to God and their country as a milking stool under a bull! Preachers are supposed to be leaders but most have difficulty leading in silent prayer. Most laymen want preachers to have a bone in their back, hair on their chest, and a brain in their head, but most liberal preachers (and some conservatives) are missing all three.

I am told that I must be more broad-minded—so broad-minded that you can hear the wind whistling between my ears. I am broad-minded about things that aren’t important, but I am very narrow-minded about things that matter. Things like my family, my country, my faith in Christ and my stand on Bible truth.

I have asked my broad-minded critics to look at political and moral issues objectively, but I have found that objectivity, with liberals, is as scarce as white dinosaurs in Kentucky.

I have been accused of not liking liberals, and I want to set the record straight once and for all: I don’t. They have done more harm to America than the communists, and I’ll blame anything I can on them whether it is leprosy, dandruff, sun spots, arthritis, etc. Of course, I must love liberals since God does (Amazing Grace), but I don’t have to like what they do.

Of course, much of their discredited, dangerous, and disastrous thinking is a result of reading periodicals of the News Twisters and watching the talking heads on television so it is not always the liberals’ fault. They are suffering from terminal brain rot. Pity.

Maybe we need state run homes for such pitiful folk!