When Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to warn America about Communist spies in our government and military, the Communists and fellow travelers came out of the woodwork. During the Army-McCarthy Hearings in 1954, Chief Counsel for the U.S. Army Joseph Welch questioned Senator McCarthy’s sense of decency because the senator suggested a young attorney was a Communist. Gullible Americans swallowed that line along with the sinker and hook. It sounded so principled, but it was Welch playing to the gallery with his acting ability.

Maybe he was a better actor than attorney.

Liberals, leftists, and loonies liked the question and considered it the coup de grâce in their battle with the spy chaser. Therefore, I will use it to the advantage of truth as I ask those sitting to the far left if they have any sense of decency or any sense of shame.

Don’t leftists have any sense of decency when they use the race card to silence any discussion or debate or disagreement with informed Conservatives? By suggesting it is a closed issue too sacred, too serious, too settled to permit questions, they don’t have to answer any questions! Have they no sense of shame when they declare that every white person is a racist and no Black can be a racist. For sure, they have no sense of decency.

Or, they have no sense.

By making everything racist, it draws attention away from actual racist acts committed by Whites, Blacks, and other haters.

Other indications leftists have no sense of shame (and no sense) is when the BLM mob disrupts, destabilizes, destroys, and tries to disband the police—yet call for the police when they need help. Not only do they have no shame, but they are also hypocrites.

But, we knew that, didn’t we.

Those who usually are found standing in left field also have no shame about gun control. What they want is people control. Tyrannical government fears guns in the hands of freedom-loving people.

For a good reason.

The gun grabbers usually blame the cop when he shoots a resisting or fleeing felon but blames the gun when a criminal shoots someone? Simple logic and common sense (missing in leftists) require consistency; however, they are not interested in reality. Leftists have to force every incident into their twisted agenda: racism is the cause of sunspots, tornadoes, arthritis, dandruff, a bad economy, and migraine headaches. They promote black racism and blame anything and everything on Whitey.

All without shame.

Don’t leftists have a sense of decency when they declare and demand a child’s right to decide whether they are male or female? That is determined at birth, so no choice needs to be made since it is either male or female. Genesis 1:26 speaks to this issue: “And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Well, that settles that.

Most sane people realize it is not a decision to make. If in doubt, one only has to look down. A physician or committee or decree is not necessary. No decision is required since it is an observation.

This same crowd says a child (boy or girl) can choose to be either one or something else, and his parents have no right to say anything about medical treatment, including physical mutilation and life-changing hormones. We are told that it is illegal if a parent refuses to call Harold by his new name, Harriot.

A father in Canada was convicted and sent to jail for “family violence” after refusing to call his daughter by her new male name.

That is the same mentality that says there is no such thing as gender, yet demanded a female vice-president! I understand they finally got one, but I keep forgetting her name.

Don’t leftists have any sense of decency when they try to champion men who pretend to be women and claim a right to women’s restrooms, showers, and the right to participate in women’s sports? Don’t they have any sense of decency as they insist even young children have a right to decide their own gender and the right to get hormone treatments and mutilating surgery? Thanks to Blather-in-Chief Biden’s executive order, transgender surgery is now free for military, prisoners, and illegal immigrants—and taxpayers pay the enormous bills.

Doesn’t that make you proud to be an American?

Don’t leftists have any sense of decency when they demand taxpayer funded abortion on demand and even demand the right to kill a child after their birth if the mother decides it is too sickly—or too much trouble. You know—feedings during the night, changing diapers, babysitters, and all those inconveniences. Moreover, they demand the right to kill a newborn baby that manages to survive the murder attempt. Baby killers tell us no efforts should be made to permit the baby to live.

Well, does that make you proud to be an American?

Don’t leftists have any sense of decency when they pretend that a family is two men or two men and a woman or even one man and three women? God clearly told Adam that a man would leave his father and mother and cling to his wife. Not his neighbor’s wife. Not to his favorite goat. But to his wife and they would be a family until parted by death. No, no shame, no decency.

Don’t leftists have any sense of decency when they pretend the U.S. Constitution gives them permission to take money from some of us to give to all of us? They don’t even consider they are doing something most Americans will like, but it is absolutely illegal. If leftists want a Socialist Government, why don’t they change the Constitution to make it legal? Evidently, they want to make America Socialist, and when we get accustomed to the freebies, they will make the giveaways and bailouts constitutional.

Don’t race-baiters have any sense of decency when they, like what’s-her-name Harris, accuse Americans of racism when we twice elected a half-black President and elected Harris the first partially Asian American and partially Black American Vice President? Someone is not thinking straight here.

Don’t the mainstream media have any sense of decency when they refused to deal with John Kerry’s refusal to wear a mask on a commercial flight but a few months earlier gave Senator Ted Cruz fits for doing the same thing? Yet another example of bias from those who claim to be neutral and balanced in their reporting.

The media continued to show bias when the Blunder-in-chief fell three times while boarding Air Force One. MSNBC, CBS News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York Times made no mention of the stumbling incident. But they made a big deal when Trump walked slowly and carefully down a ramp at West Point. Biden also ridiculed Trump at the time, saying, “Watch how I run up ramps, and he stumbles down ramps.” The mainstream media have no shame.

Doesn’t the Biden White House have any sense of decency when they fired five staffers for having used marijuana when Vice President Harris (I’ve almost memorized her name) admitted doing the same thing?

No, the leftists have no shame; they have no sense of decency; they cannot blush as was true millennia ago when Jeremiah wrote in  Jeremiah 6:15, “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination?  nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush.”

Principled people can blush because they have a sense of decency—that progressive Liberals don’t possess.

(Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 18 books, the most recent being Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning!  The eBook is available here with the printed edition (and other titles) at www.cstnews.com. Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D.; and visit his blog.  Send a request to DBoysphd@aol.com for a free subscription to his  articles, and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

In 1700, there were about 300,000 white Americans located in the eastern part of the country from the settlements in Florida, Jamestown, north to Boston and along the northeast and as far west as Kentucky and Georgia. All estimates of the number of Indians are from two million to many millions, and many of those tribes hated other tribes similar to the hatred between various black tribes in South Africa.

Suppose in 1700, the National Association of Self-righteous Hypocrites convinced the leaders in each colony that all the wrongs done to the Native Americans had to be made right. Since white leaders could not all close the cities and sail back to Europe, it was decided that the Indians must have a voice in running each colony–one man, one vote. Any idea how that would have turned out?

Some argue that the Indians did not own the land simply because they were here. What determines land ownership? Many would say ownership of the land would depend if the land has been cleared, permanent homes established, animals domesticated, the land worked, and relevant taxes paid. Surely, riding around on a horse does not establish ownership.

After cataloging and confessing our many, many failures, surely almost everyone would agree that the world would be a vastly different and miserable place had Europeans not come to these shores. So, to atone for their mistakes and to move on with their lives, modern Whites recognized their failures in the 1800s and early 1900s and gave land for reservations to the Indians with many freebies. But that, too, has failed. There is no value in living with self-hate, sorrow, or guilt because of the many Indians’ present deplorable conditions; but we should learn from the failed attempts to help the Indian tribes.

There are shocking similarities with South Africa. Even if the left wingers were right about how greedy Whites chased out the black “owners” of what is now South Africa, they would have to live with where they are now. However, liberals have made that difficult by rewriting South African History to present most white people as vile and most Blacks as virtuous.

Uninformed or prejudiced commentators on South Africa often refer to the white population as “colonialists” but history totally refutes the concept of Whites taking control of or taking land from indigenous people. When the Dutch arrived in South Africa in 1652 to found a hospital and refreshing station for their sailors passing the Cape, they found unoccupied land near the Cape of Good Hope at the very tip of Africa. If the Whites had trekked far enough north, they would have found tribes of Blacks but does any sane person suggest those Blacks owned the unoccupied land where the Dutch settled?

When Blacks discovered that white people were established south of them, they moved southward amazed with the white people and their strange appearance, habits, tools, and inventions. The simple natives were drawn to the strange, pale visitors and were fascinated with their trading items.

It was a learning experience for both Blacks and Whites and the beginning of a dubious, dangerous, and deadly relationship that forever affected both races.

There was nothing there, not a railroad, highway, building, hospital, or school. Some French Huguenots arrived in 1688 followed by the English in 1795, so white South Africans–Dutch, French, and English–go back more than 300 years. They were not colonialists and did not displace any Blacks. The Germans arrived in 1857. Add to the mix a huge group of Pakistanis, Indians, and Chinese known as Coloreds, and you have a boiling pot in our day.

The ignorant or uninformed often speak of how five million Whites dominated about 20 million Blacks but the fact is that Blacks are not a homogeneous force. There were five million Zulus; about 5 million Xhosa (pronounced Koza); two million Tswana; etc., plus about three million Coloreds who have mixed blood that could be called mulattoes. Blacks hate the Coloreds as much as they hate the Whites.

The hatred displayed among the various black tribes is legendary and pathetic and ancient.

The anger, agitation, and aggression among the black tribes are well known. A white doctor who established a hospital for Blacks in Durban declared, “When a Zulu who has been in an accident is brought in, we must have a Zulu nurse for him. If we have a Xhosa nurse, she will pull off his bandages at night and let him bleed to death.”

Now, that’s black on black hatred.

The Brits and the Dutch turned the barren tip of South Africa into one of the most advanced, modern, and safest nations in the world. They built a civilization that lifted millions of Blacks from poverty to Africa’s highest standard of living–2 to 5 times greater than anywhere in Africa.

While it is true that many white men got rich, so did some Blacks. About a million Blacks from surrounding black nations used to illegally enter South Africa each year to work in the mines. No other African nation has a problem with people trying to slip across their borders to live and work.

Even today with the transfer of power from a white minority to the black majority, the white minority still controls most of the wealth in South Africa. Thus, the pot is simmering and the top is ready to blow. Following the funeral of Mandela, Blacks jockeyed to replace him but that’s like the junior officers on the Titanic fighting for the opportunity to replace Captain Smith while the giant ship was sinking!

South Africa is sinking!

South Africa is the murder and rape capital of the world. South African men rape very young females, even babies, thinking it will cure them of AIDS! They need a cure for their stupidity and brutality. A personal encounter with biblical principles will often solve the brutality problem, but there is little hope for stupidity.

Blacks throughout the African continent were much better off under white racist government but since Whites were in control, the local Communists and international globalists screamed that it was unfair for a minority to rule a majority. So, they demanded an end to colonial rule and the now-black controlled nations have experienced famine, insurrections, genocide, Islamic terrorism, and black dictatorships. But that is acceptable to globalists because Blacks are in charge.

The U.N. Human Development Index (HDI), reveals the downward spiral of South Africa. It reveals that before 1994 during the years of white minority government, South Africa’s HDI ranking was progressively climbing and the nation was ranked far ahead of the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. It was also higher than the world average. However, by 2001, their HDI score had fallen below the 1975 level.

Communism has historically failed. If Communists were in control of the Sahara Desert, it would be running out of sand in three years.

The failure and decline of South Africa was put in the spotlight when headlines shrieked, “King Of The Zulus: Slams ‘So-Called’ South African Democracy, Says Country Was Better Off Under Apartheid!” The long-time and respected black king found himself in hot water with his praise for the former white minority government.

Liberals squealed like a stuck pig when any credit was given to the white minority government known as apartheid. However, now that Blacks are in total control of a failing nation, the injustice by Blacks against white farmers is far worse than Whites against Blacks during apartheid. Why are leftists not screaming about the crime and mistreatment of white farmers?

Leftists were sure concerned when Blacks didn’t own many farms and had little political power. It seems Liberals, black or white, have a major problem with consistency. Maybe if it were lions, tigers, and elephants that were being killed, the radical leftists might get concerned. But white people don’t seem to matter.

The Communists in African National Congress (ANC) and the South Africa Communist Party (SACP) also called for the nationalization of mines, banks, and other major industries in South Africa and black leaders are demanding that white farmers surrender their farms that have been in their families for many generations! The first two farms were taken in August, just the beginning, so “Katie Bar the Door.” The major civil war between Blacks and Whites that Mandela allegedly diverted has obviously only been delayed.

South Africa is well on its way to being another black tragedy because of power, pride, politics, and possessions. South Africa and Zimbabwe are rich with coal, platinum, iron, chrome, gold, diamonds, etc. And if the Communists get total control of the minerals that are crucial to the free world, then free leaders will have to go, hat in hand, to totalitarians for what is needed for their survival. So, the battle in Africa is not only a black-white issue.

While apartheid was horrendous, the nation’s primary problem was politics, not prejudice. It was Communism not colonialism.

Mandela and his cronies at the ANC and SACP are/were not fools, just Communists, and you can always trust a Communist–to be a Communist. Contrary to what the ANC and leftists in the free world have said, South Africa was not a colony. It was founded on unoccupied land by Whites–some good, some bad.

Why are even Conservatives afraid to tell the truth?

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.

After fouling his nest with President Truman, he learned how to deal with politicians. He used them and they used him. No question about that. He had access to the halls of power but did not use that access to challenge, correct, or condemn powerful officials. He refused to condemn his friend Bill Clinton even saying he was a true man of God and would be a “good Christian evangelist” and that Hillary should “run the country.” What country? And run it where?

Graham is considered the “pastor to the Presidents” but he was a pastor whose voice was quiet when it came to denouncing sin as Old Testament prophets did. Billy was a considered a “prophet without portfolio.” However, he did not qualify as Nathan to David, Jonah to Nineveh, or Jeremiah to Judah. Graham was more like the dumb dogs in Isaiah 56:10 that refused to bark. When I was young, I had a watchdog but he wouldn’t bark, but why have a watchdog that refuses to warn? Graham’s voice was silent; after all, he must not hinder his access to the halls of power. Careful what you say. It was tragic. It is also tragic that informed Christians still defend such compromise.

He was always careful to say the right thing at the right moment to keep his standing with sitting Presidents–always uncritical, unchallenging, and unquestioning. He called President Lyndon Johnson, “the best qualified man we’ve ever had in the White House” and “a very religious person.” Johnson was a moral leper like Kennedy and Clinton.

When Johnson was in deep doo doo because of the Vietnam War and his back was against the wall, Graham called him “the greatest religious leader in the world!” Incredible, since everyone knew Johnson was a filthy mouthed, loud-mouth fornicator.

Johnson knew if he got Graham into his orbit, he also pulled in his constituency. Esquire said it well of Johnson: “Westmoreland was his general, his soldier. Fortas was his Jew. Thurgood Marshall was his Negro. And Billy was his preacher.” Tragic!

Johnson was fearful that Graham would support Republican Goldwater in 1964, (Billy having received 60,000 telegrams in one day urging him to support Goldwater!) so Johnson told Graham, “Now, Billy, you stay out of politics.” Graham admitted, “He even kept me right in the White House on the weekend before the election.” Of course, Billy was not a prisoner. He chose his gilded cage. The Lincoln Bedroom is a very prestigious suite but I wonder if he slept well.

After Johnson abdicated his White House throne in 1968, Graham was called to the bedside of former President Eisenhower whom Graham had suggested a run for the Presidency in 1952. It is declared by Billy’s official biographer that Graham personally baptized Ike shortly after his Inauguration, but that is not true. The pastor of National Presbyterian Church catechized (taught the rudiments of his church) to Ike at the White House and baptized him (not immersion) shortly after his inauguration. It doesn’t matter since no form of baptism has any effect on a person’s salvation.

With tears in his eyes, Ike asked Billy “How can I know I’m going to heaven? How can I be sure, Billy, absolutely sure, that my sins are forgiven?” Graham said he took his cold hand and told him “his whole past was forgiven. I prayed for him.” Ike replied, “Thank you, Billy. I’m ready.” If that’s it, then that was “religious malfeasance” and no Bible preacher would have been so vague but would have spoken of repentance, Christ’s death and resurrection, the New Birth, and sin. Maybe Graham had dealt with that in 1953 before Ike’s election. Ike was the only sitting President who was “baptized” while in office.

Graham’s association with President Nixon is well known and as more details have emerged recently, Graham’s name was besmirched. Billy had said of Nixon, “He is a splendid churchman;” however, Nixon was not even religious or a regular church goer. Graham’s statement came back to bite him when newly released tapes revealed that Nixon used extremely vile language that peeled the paint off the walls of the Oval Office.

Many have said to me, “Well, Billy may have courted the powerful but he still preaches the Bible.” However, that is not true, except at selected times. Moreover, he stopped preaching about abortion, telling columnist Cal Thomas as reported in Flashpoint in August of 1995, “I think the top social issue of our time may be ecology. I think that’s more dangerous…and I’m going to start speaking out on that.” Oh yes, we must be more concerned about bogus global warming than protecting innocent babies!

Graham even told Larry King that sodomites are born sodomites, since, as he said, it is in their genes. Graham was quoting dishonest homosexual activists not unbiased experts or the Bible.

He stopped emphasizing the blood atonement many years ago; after all, that is not very urbane, sophisticated, and chic. A 1968 letter from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association declared, “Mr. Graham believes that we are saved through the blood of Christ, however, this aspect of Christian doctrine he does not emphasize in his messages. This is the duty and prerogative of the pastors.” Well, that would surprise every evangelist for the last 2,000 years.

When he went to Russia, China, North Korea, and Hungry, he had good things to say about those slave nations; all totally untrue statements. Those trips were an amazing display of political correctness toward infamous dictators. Did Graham ever read II Chron. 19:2, “And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord?”

Graham has been giving aid and comfort to the enemy (whether Communists or radical unbelieving preachers) while trying not to disturb the very lucrative cash flow. Only eternity will reveal what he could have accomplished had he stayed true to his original calling, commitment, and convictions.

God will be the final judge in his life and mine. I want to learn from his life. That might be one of the redeeming features of his life if a large host learns from his successes and his failures.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

A good fallout from this release is that more people are discovering for-the-most-part unknown truths about King from the Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS News, etc. For some reason, derogative but truthful information from me is suspect because I’m a Christian Conservative but will be accepted from the lame stream media!

It is interesting that the Washington Post dealt with the facts as presented in the released files but they skewed them to soften the blow about King’s various, vicious, and vile sexual activities. They spent their article trying to disprove or soften the King/Communist connection instead of the vile sexual revelations. But even that was unsuccessful. They admitted that the files reveal that the FBI analysis paints King as a “whole-hearted” Communist who followed the “Marxist-Leninist line.”

However, they did not deal with the many Communists King hired to direct his various offices and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson’s concern with him sleeping with the enemy. Pun intended.

The Post stated, “Stanley Levison, [was] a New York lawyer and businessman who served as a top financier for the Communist Party years before he met King in 1956.” Note that it is suggested that Levison was a “financier for the Communist Party before he met King.” As if Levison severed his treasonous Party activities with a hostile foreign government after he met the Baptist preacher. Not so.

I wrote in my eBook, “Stanley Levison was the bag man for the Communist Party. He distributed millions of dollars from the Russian KGB (the Soviet secret police) to finance Communist activities in the U.S.! King’s wife, Coretta, said he [Levison] was ‘a devoted and trusted’ friend of King. He edited King’s book Stride Toward Freedom, wrote many of his speeches, and filled out his income tax returns. Remember that this dude was working for the Soviet KGB secret police and King at the same time!”

Nor did the Post report that President Kennedy told King, referring to some of his Red employees in 1963, “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.”

Moreover, neither the Post nor anyone else reported that Robert Williams was an American living in Cuba and three times a week did a radio broadcast into the U.S. urging Blacks to attack white Americans. The foreword to Williams’ book, Negroes With Guns was written by Martin Luther King, Jr! All the editors and publishers of the book were members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Lee Harvey Oswald was also a member! None of that was reported by the media.

Wonder why the media is so selective. You think they would be as cautious when dissecting a Conservative?

There is much more damming evidence tying King to Communist Party members, the Party line, and tainted money that the media refuses to deal with.

Readers, especially younger people, should understand the atmosphere in America in the 1960s. We had fought the Korean War in the 1950s with 40,000 American soldiers killed. The war was between the Soviet-backed North Koreans and the free world’s support of South Korea. Later, China joined North Korea as thousands of Chinese troops swarmed across the Yalu River into the south killing American and allied troops. The war ended in 1953 with the deaths of five million soldiers and civilians! The “good guys” did not win that war. In fact, it is still officially continuing–with a stalemate.

At this time, President Trump is dealing with the descendants of the North Koreans who raped the south and only God knows if this time the North Koreans might set the world on fire, not just the Korean Peninsula.

During the 1950s, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy was a Catholic, often drunk, who had stirred Americans in a 1950 speech as few senators had ever done when he alleged Communists and Soviet spies were in our Government, universities, film industry, and elsewhere. He is still ridiculed for his inflammatory accusations; however, his critics don’t want to admit that there were Communists and Soviet spies in the U.S. Such flaming Reds that come to mind during that era are President Roosevelt’s closest aid Harry Hopkins, another aid Laughlin Currie, and top Treasury official Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg–the latter two being executed for treason.

Senator McCarthy yells from his grave, “I told you so!”

Moreover, anxiety over Communism was exacerbated by the expansion of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe; the victory of the Communists in the Chinese Civil War with the “good guys” fleeing the mainland for safety in Taiwan–where they and their descendants still survive; the success of the Soviet Union in developing nuclear weapons; the trials of spy Alger Hiss (State Department official also involved in setting up the United Nations); and the confession of Klaus Fuchs, a Soviet spy who provided nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union and fled to East Berlin.

The FBI document reveals that King had Communist ties, was linked to financial misconduct, and had been involved in numerous extramarital affairs, as well as having a child out of wedlock. The report suggested there was a disconnect between King’s profession as a preacher and his actions! You think?

According to the files, King’s sexual activity was deemed as “unnatural” and “abnormal,” even reporting on an apparent “two-day drunken sex orgy.” The report also claimed that King engaged in an affair with folk singer Joan Baez.

The document reveals that King held a workshop in Miami in February of 1968 funded by money from the Ford Foundation. The purpose of the workshop was to train black ministers for leadership positions. The report goes on to say, “One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scene drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference.” The document continues, “Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area. An all-night sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance.”

“One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey. The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of the guests. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.” The document continued to say that such occurrences were well known by King’s acquaintances.

“As early as January, 1964, King engaged in another two-day drunken sex orgy in Washington, D.C. Many of those present engaged in sexual acts, natural as well as unnatural, for the entertainment of onlookers. When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King … discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect,” the document reads.

This was not a one-time-event as the document reveals, “Throughout the ensuing years and until this date King has continued to carry on his sexual aberrations secretly while holding himself out to the public view as a moral leader of religious conviction.”

According to the document, King had a frequent affair with a woman, which may have led to a baby girl being born. The FBI said the source of the information was “a prominent Negro who is related by law to King’s mistress,” who referred to King repeatedly as a “hypocrite.”

“It was learned in February, 1968, from a very responsible Los Angeles individual in a position to know, that King has been having an illicit love affair with the wife of a prominent Negro dentist in Los Angeles, California, since 1962. He believes King fathered a baby girl born to this woman inasmuch as her husband is allegedly sterile,” the document reveals.

“The child resembles King to a great degree and King contributes to the support of this child. He calls this woman every Wednesday and frequently meets her in various cities throughout the country.”

“The prominent Negro who furnished the information said he was appalled that a man of King’s low character could cause so much trouble for both Negroes and the Government,” the document reads. “As can be seen from above, it is a fact that King not only regularly indulges in adulterous acts but enjoys the abnormal by engaging in group sexual orgies.”

David J. Garrow is a well-known leftist author and very friendly King biographer who revealed to USA Today King’s justification for his sexual immorality: “He [King] explained it as someone on the road 27 days a month and needing sex as a form of anxiety reduction and for emotional solace.” Anxiety reduction and emotional solace are now excuses and justification for immorality!

Would you accept that excuse for immorality and perversion from your pastor?

An earlier AP article reported, “The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. spent parts of the night before his assassination with two women and then fought physically with a third, according to the memoirs of the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy, King’s top aide.”

I reveal many other sexual escapades, some abnormal, by King in my eBook but it is clear to all honest people that King was a philandering husband, a pathetic man, a phony preacher, and a prevaricating leader. Isn’t it time to recognize King’s attacks on women and deal with him as the media is doing with the Hollywood sexual predators? Is King the kind of man American youth should be told to emulate and respect? Do we really need, in the interest in fairness and balance, to have a national holiday in his honor? Why not replace it with another famous Black who was a committed father, husband, and patriot? Maybe Booker T. Washington!

Isn’t it time to remove King’s statues, school names, street names, etc., since we don’t want to perpetuate male aggressiveness and mistreatment of women?

We’ll see if the Hollywood moral crusade will go that far to send an unmistakable message in the interest of honesty, fairness, morality, and women’s protection.

Kennedy and King had some good qualities as all men have; however, we must follow and support Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth.”

Boys’ eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! can be viewed and purchased here.

Revealing the very crass, crude, and corrupt King would destroy the hero worship of most Americans. King is not held to the same standard of “lesser” men; therefore preachers, pundits, and politicians refuse to tell the truth about him! Is that not black privilege? Moreover, have other black leaders assumed that they too have a right not to be judged by a high standard of civility, godly living, and personal conduct–Oh, all right, how about simple honesty?

Some King defenders excused his very close association with Communist activists such as Abner W. Berry, Bayard Rustin (who spent time in jail for public homosexual acts), Hunter Pitts O’Dell, Stanley Levison (bag man for the Communist Party in the U.S.), Robert Williams, and Carl and Anne Braden (convicted of conspiring to bomb the home of a Black and place the blame on “white segregationists.”) All the above were vile Communists dedicated to the overthrow of our government, but King climbed in bed with them. He was defended by his followers and since his mission was so sacred, he was forgiven. Black privilege on steroids.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy warned King to sever connections with the Communists that surrounded him but he refused to listen. Finally, President Kennedy told King: “They’re Communists. You’ve got to get rid of them.” Even then, King discussed, delayed, and dissimulated.

King’s many grammatical errors and plagiarism were admitted by King’s family and the plagiarism was characterized by King defenders as “textual appropriation.” King was “only doing what Blacks do.” That is a slander of all black scholars. Others identified his thievery as “borrowings,” “voice merging,” “resonances,” “intertextualizations,” “blending,” “alchemizing,” and other whoppers. King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University from another author but the university did not revoke, recall, or repudiate his degree! No white student would have been treated so kindly. It all translates: Black privilege. Special rules for special people.

Had I been a member of King’s church or a preacher in his movement, I would have charged him with heresy, tried him in a religious court, and stripped him of his religious credentials. He provided evidence of his heresy and heresy is not cancelled out by Black privilege!

King’s graduate paper titled “What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection,” let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. King declared, “But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, [Christ’s deity, virgin birth, and physical resurrection] and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically [sic] untenable.” So the early Christians had no other reason to believe He was deity? What about His miraculous birth? What about walking on water? What about raising the dead? What about giving sight to the blind? What about rising from the dead? What about Christ’s declaration: “I and my Father are one.” No, no reason at all!

Returning to the divinity of Christ, King concluded: “So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og [sic] God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.” So all men have the potential of being divine! King was not a believer and any honest Bible scholar of any persuasion will admit that that statement alone would disqualify King being recognized as a Christian, let alone a leader in any Christian group.

He makes much of Mark’s Gospel not dealing with the virgin birth but a seminarian surely understands that the argument from silence is a very weak argument. No one says that all four gospels deal with the very same incidents or deal with them from the same perspective.

In a paper titled “The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically” King wrote: “The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden [sic] of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule [sic] by many.”

He closes his paper with: “Others [sic] doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant [sic] in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose [sic] to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he is willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.” King was saying that you are a dummy if you believe the Bible to be the very Word of God.

As to the atonement of Christ, he wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He added that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is “bizarre.” He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral.” Any white Baptist preacher would be drummed out the ministry for such heresy but King had special privilege.

As to the Second Coming of Christ, Day of Judgment and resurrection of the body King wrote that these teachings taken literally “are quite absurd….It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ.”

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that non-canonical books were as good as or better than the Old Testament books! “To my mind, many of the works of this period were infinitely more valuable than those that received canonicity. The materials to justify such statements are found mainly in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. These works, although presented pseudonymously, are of lasting significance to the Biblical student.” Any study of those books will easily confirm the fact that they are forgeries, foolishness, and fraudulent and did not come close to the canonical books which were inspired, infallible, and inerrant.

Throughout his writings, King scorns Bible-believing Christians and praises unbelieving liberals, but that is not surprising since he did that all his life.

A Black preacher encapsulated King’s theology and philosophy better than anyone else: “It is as though Socrates, Thoreau, Hegel, and Jesus were all dumped together into one philosophical bowl like tossed salad.” Then Gandhi was tossed in to add additional spice to the muddle!

When King received the Nobel Peace Prize, the youngest man to receive it, he said: “I am a minister of the Gospel.” He was an ordained minister but not of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! He preached “another gospel,” and his Black privilege did not guarantee him a place in Heaven.

Moreover, I cringe to hear him called a “Baptist.”

http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”