Fake news has been in the news lately for good reason–there is so much of it out there. The media moguls think they are the rightful gatekeepers of what the great unwashed populace need to know. Richard Salant, former President of CBS News stated the same working philosophy by stating, “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” That kind of arrogance would gag a maggot.

This warped view of the news was expressed by Richard M. Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS political news who said, “We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.” (Emphasis added.) Our agenda! I thought journalists were agenda-free.

Such arrogance is exceeded only by its asininity. However, the news fakers are winning the battle for the minds, if not the souls, of America. The false prophets of fake news are incredibly successful. George Bernard Shaw warned us to “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” Accordingly, President Reagan wisely said, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

Truth is irrelevant to most people. While truth will set us free, it often stings at times; so the masses are more comfortable with fake news and false prophets.

It is easier to believe a lie you’ve heard a thousand times than to believe the truth you’ve heard only once. In this column, you will read some truths that will cause you to question my honesty, competence, or my motives. However, while most of the following is shocking, it is all true and all honest people love truth. Honest people hug truth to their bosoms–not error, even popular error. Of course, they first confirm that it is, in fact, the truth.

We all espouse unknown error and honest people will correct their thinking when evidence is provided them. John Maynard Keynes made a very prescient statement when he said, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” Great question from a usually confused man. I ask that question of those who read this column regarding the following fake news.

Alfred Kinsey is thought to have been a great, dedicated scientist whose work at Indiana University dealing with human sexuality was classic. However, that is fake news. He was an expert in bugs, not bodies; wasps, not women; moths, not men. Time magazine concluded an article declaring, “Kinsey…has done for sex what Columbus did for geography.” Not hardly! Columbus knew where he wanted to go but didn’t know how to get there; however, he provided mankind with facts about the unknown world. Kinsey knew where he wanted to go and he got there: he wanted to convince sane people that any kind of sex is acceptable, at any age. He succeeded with deliberately flawed and fraudulent information intended to mislead.

Kinsey was weird as a child and it continued into adulthood. As a young man, he initially forced drinking straws, pipe cleaners, pencils, and finally toothbrushes into his urethra to punish himself for having homosexual feelings! He continued doing that with toothbrushes for the rest of his life. Then, he circumcised himself without anesthesia! That is the sex expert people rave about. America has been snookered with false news about sex!

Kinsey’s two books have been quoted by textbook authors as undisputed truth and generations have accepted his mistakes, myths, and madness as scholarship. But Kinsey’s work was not only flawed, and false, but a fraud. His two books on human sexuality are fraught with error, insufficient research, flawed research, even corrupt research. He was in fact, a prominent, pathetic, pedophilic professor who taught that children are sexual from their birth and are “unharmed by sex with adults.”

The above information is supported by The Lancet, vol. 337, 3/2/91, p. 547: “In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports … Kinsey et al … questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of ‘normal’ sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles–or so it must be hoped. Kinsey…. has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.” But his co-workers did not explain; they only stonewalled.

Please understand that the British medical journal Lancet is charging that Kinsey chose prisoners and sex offenders to study human sexuality and he presented his work as representing normal people! Kinsey proved a basic law: false data produces false results.

Lazy writers quote him without question and his work is still accepted by a generation that likes his fake conclusions: any kind of sex is acceptable, appropriate, and not abnormal. He showed his depravity when he said, “The only unnatural sexual act is that which you cannot perform.” His fake results laid a solid foundation for the Playboy Philosophy. What a shock: the messengers, the message, and the methodology were flawed resulting in twisted, tainted, and troubled generations.

Kinsey’s “scientific research” purported to prove that even infant children were sexual beings capable of having pleasurable sexual experiences with adults! And those adults would be able to lead them into fulfilling sexual activity! Kinsey is now known to have been a sexual pervert and child abuser. He and his staff orally and manually stimulated to orgasm hundreds of children from age two months to fifteen years! He called it research but honest people call it child abuse and false information.

Dr. Judith A. Reisman is the heroin who courageously exploded the facts about the two Kinsey Reports (1948 and 1953) that uninformed people tout as ground-breaking when they were fake news of the worst sort.

Nelson Mandela was a former president of South Africa, member of the Communist African National Congress, and hero to most people but he was arrested and spent 27 years in a South African prison not as a civil rights fighter but for sabotage (and other crimes). When arrested he had on his person an article in his own handwriting, “Why I am a Good Communist.”

The white government offered him his freedom many times if he would renounce terror and violence but he refused and continued his prison sentence and enhanced his reputation as a weird kind of martyr. But white liberals are fearful of the truth and continue to produce fake news perpetuating the false information that Mandela was a highly principled man for all people to emulate. That is fake information intended to mislead.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had courage but little character. He made a contribution to the civil rights cause but few newsmakers are willing to tell the truth about his philandering, his plagiarism, and his prevarication. The young college students, some who died, were the real heroes of the civil rights movement while many of the leaders were more interested in a “buck and a broad” than in anyone’s civil rights. As the veteran activist Michael Harrington delicately phrased it, the movement was “not at all a sour-faced, pietistic” endeavor. “Everybody was out getting laid. Or trying to.”

The London Daily Mail (Aug. 30, 2013) reported, “Leading one of the most astonishing double lives in history, King was not just the Bible-thumping champion of the rights of man, but also an inveterate womaniser who cheated on his wife throughout their marriage.” So, slowly the media are willing to tell the truth about King even as they promote his contributions to the civil rights movement. In fact, the Daily Mail article paralleled much of my eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! available at amazon.com.

King slept with some of his church members as reported by the Daily Mail: “Sleeping with female members was the norm rather than the exception and King himself admitted that he didn’t know a single black preacher who was chaste.” That was a slander to the black preachers I know who are godly, committed preachers or maybe it says something about the preachers with whom King was associated.

One more bit of fake news that will test the character of readers who are committed to truth. In dealing with this subject, I take the chance of losing friends while I hand my critics a chain saw and climb out on a limb: It is fake news that six millions Jews were slaughtered in Hitler’s concentration camps! Now, the skinheads and Jew haters will probably run with this to the extreme and all Holocaust Deniers will be encouraged in their extremist views. Hitler was a rabid hater and be wary of those who try to explain, excuse, and exonerate him from his bloodbath of Europe. But, those interested in truth need not fear to admit that the original six million deaths was an overstatement by the Soviet Union. No principled person should be fearful of truth. Whatever the number killed, Hitler was still a monster.

The Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust Center have conceded that the 4 million figure inscribed on a memorial plaque at Auschwitz was a gross exaggeration. It was removed and the authorities changed the total to 1.1 million deaths “of all causes.” Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer said in 1989 that it is time to finally acknowledge the familiar four million figure [at Auschwitz] is a deliberate myth.

The Daily Telegraph for July 17, 1990 reported, “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million”; and the Washington Times of July 17, 1990 declared, “Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million” No informed, honest person speaks or writes of six million Jews killed in Nazi camps.

One reason false prophets have been so successful with their fake news is because of a failing church. Pastors have simply failed to teach people to think for themselves, do their own research, commit to truth whatever the cost, and be willing to take a stand if they stand alone. In other words, modern church members are usually non-readers, non-thinkers, and non-doers. Moreover, many pastors feel less threatened when members don’t think.
Some of the information in this column has been offensive to some readers but it is better to disturbed by the truth than deceived by error.

What will you do with the truth? When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do?

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.

I have problems with much of American culture–movies, television, music, etc.; however, America is still the best place in the world. Our culture has degenerated for many years and it is only reasonable to attempt to slow its decline. Illegal and poorly managed legal immigration has had, is having, and will have a divisive, debilitating, and destructive influence on America.

We have observed environmental fanatics, in collusion with the Federal government, going to outrageous efforts to preserve polar bears, killer whales, snail darters, spotted owls, and yellow belly sap suckers; so is it unreasonable to preserve America as the land of the free and the home of the brave? Why is it commendable for Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and others to loudly proclaim their ethnicity and boast of past achievements, but when a white Christian does so, everyone treats him like a bigot?

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! I have their test scores and photos to prove it! Most sane people would agree that that attitude is completely normal. It would be abnormal if that were not true.

Last night I saw video of a young Martin Luther King Jr. declare, “I am proud to be black. Black is beautiful. Someone needs to say it.” That was fantastic but why was it right for him to say it about being black but wrong for me to say the same thing about being white? I will expect an answer from my critics.

Non-thinkers/racists/liberals reveal their racism by calling me a racist! 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 that everyone pretends isn’t there! Of course, I don’t want to be identified with the white supremacist crowd or the clowns of the KKK because they are obvious haters. I do think it is not only right but also desirable to be proud of our heritage–whatever our heritage. Mine happens to be white Christian.

Sure there are times when we are embarrassed with what white people have done and are doing, but that would be true of every group. Does affirming that fact make me a racist? Overall, white people have contributed enormously to make the world a better place–yes, even Christianized white people, that is, people who were not Christians but who were influenced by the Bible.

The desire to keep our nation historically American with our language, customs, values, religion, etc., is admirable and nothing to be ashamed of. Why should we want a major shift in the racial ratio, language, customs, and religion? The desire for keeping America in its present state is a reason to be skeptical of mass immigration. Of course, there is no question regarding illegal immigration although non-thinking liberals usually try to justify such criminal activity.

Moreover, it is not racist but realistic to declare that accepting immigrants from most European nations would have less negative impact on America than immigrants from non-white and non-English speaking nations. Now, if my critics will stop screaming incoherently and try to stop the knee jerking (left one, of course) they will be forced to admit the statement is true. My motives can be legitimately questioned but the accuracy of the statement cannot be.

If potential immigrants have never used an indoor toilet; or never driven an automobile; teach that women are inferior to men; believe in multiple wives; think it is normal to behead a “loved one” for being raped; think it acceptable to mutilate baby girls; have no experience with freedom and no desire to be taught such; are committed to sharia law not American law; believe that death is acceptable for one who leaves “the only true religion”; have no money, skills, or desire to attain them; then only a fool would suggest they can be absorbed in American life as easily as people from European nations. Why welcome such people knowing what it will do to our nation?

Any who disagree with the above should take a trip to Dearborn, Michigan as soon as possible. Seeing is believing–except to the willfully blind.

Legal immigration should be halted for a few years although I think exceptions should be made for those Americans who marry foreigners. In addition to temporarily ending immigration we should raise our standards requiring all new citizens to recite the Preamble to the Constitution and whistle “This Land is Your Land, This Land is my Land” at the same time! Well, maybe not quite that extreme, but almost!

Stop all legal immigration now; build the wall and penalize any US business that hires an illegal alien; fine and deport all foreigners who overstay their visas; and demand that Muslim nations absorb the “refugees” fleeing from other Muslim nations.

Hey, if unlimited immigration is good, then let European and Muslim nations take in the immigrants who are “yearning to breathe free….” If it is noble, kind, and compassionate to take in an unlimited number of foreigners, then let the other advanced nations get the “blessings” of immigration. Furthermore, if Muslims are offended when I sing patriotic songs, fly the American flag, and pray to Christ, then tough luck. This is a big world so they can find somewhere else to live. There is plenty of empty space on the Arabian Desert!

If America continues to permit massive legal and illegal immigration we will eventually become a banana republic—without bananas and without a republic!

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.)

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!”

I resent historians and media who refuse to deal with truth whether it is about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. Or, about preachers whether it be Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Bennie Hinn–or King. It is astounding that many conservatives refuse to acknowledge the historical record but emphasize only a small but commendable portion of a hero’s life. Therefore, they don’t feel cowardly in their very selective stand.

For the record, Johnson was a thief, liar, and foul-mouthed fornicator. The best thing he did for America was not run for reelection. That is not to say that he did not accidently accomplish some good during his stint in office. Moreover, it is a fact that Blacks were often intimidated and refused voting rights in some southern states and it is good that that has been corrected. However, one should not then leap to the conclusion that it is discrimination to demand that everyone prove citizenship when voting. That is not discrimination but common sense. Nor is it wrong to reject any ploy that permits a person to vote multiple times in various districts or makes it easy to commit voter fraud. In our desire to do good, we must not do stupid.

King was a social worker who used the ministry to accomplish his mission and let me be clear that there were many wrongs that needed to be righted. Most of the young people who faced the white bullies with dogs and clubs were heroes. Some of them even lost their lives to white thugs. King was an opportunist who accomplished some good. However, because King was black and was killed by a white racist who should have been executed within a few months of his crime, most media and academia refuse to research, recognize, and report the truth about King. I do so because I don’t worship anyone and try to hold everyone to the same standard.

Many reading this, including most conservatives, will be offended at the suggestion that King might not have been a Christian. But then a person is not a Christian because he professes to be or because he belongs to a “Christian” Church or because he is baptized. According to the Bible, one becomes a Christian when he or she exercises faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. King, according to his own words was not a believer!

We can know much about a person if we study what he has written, and I have spent many hours reading King. His seminary papers are very revealing as to what he believed and what his motives were. The King papers are courtesy of the King family and those papers prove that he was not only an unbeliever but far from being a scholar! Since no one else will do so, I will try to set the record straight.

I can live with my motives and I hope you can live with the truth. Some of this information is from my eBook Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color available at amazon.com with documentation. Please note that I will not deal with King’s philandering, plagiarism, politics, or partying.

Today, my main interest is to look at the evidence for proof of King’s salvation, not whether he was an accomplished community organizer and admired civil rights leader.
King received his B.D. from Crozer Seminary then started to work on his Ph.D. at Boston University. All the following information is from that time period.

King’s seminary and university papers show his taking a scalpel to excise the core doctrine of Christ’s physical resurrection from the Bible and from history: “From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting.” No, it is King who is found wanting after being weighed in the balances. Of course, King was aware that all four Gospels clearly teach the physical resurrection of Christ as do many of the epistles, but that is not good enough for King: the resurrection of our Savior is “found wanting.” Furthermore, there are scores of carefully documented books that support Christ’s physical resurrection. Any scholar would know that.

Regarding the virgin birth King wrote: “it seems downright improbable and even impossible for anyone to be born without a human father.” Of course, it is improbable but improbable does not mean impossible, especially with God! King further wrote: “First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to [sic] shallow to convince any objective thinker.” King was not objective and in my opinion not a deep thinker.

In a paper at Crozer titled “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” his professor rebuked him suggesting that it would be good if he proofread his papers before turning them in! He was given a B+ by his professor. In this paper he misspelled “Samaria,” “learned,” “agonizing,” “omniscient,” “omniscience,” “reliance,” “orbit,” “warmest,” “intimacy,” “inadequate,” and others. That was graduate work! I would have given him a D, if he rewrote the paper maybe a C.

King wrote, “They realized that if they wanted to get an objective standard of reference they would they would [sic] have to go beyond the pages of the old [sic] testament [sic] into the path that lead [sic] to that locked door.” King was favoring the position that the Old Testament is not a reliable historical record. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise, promote, and protect paganism.

King concludes his paper dealing with archeology and the Old Testament: “If we accept the Old Testament as being ‘true’ we will find it full of errors, contradictions, and obvious impossibilities–as that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.” Surely he blushed to write about errors since his papers and books are riddled with errors or all kinds. When he purloined pages from other authors he also stole their mistakes!

In one of King’s papers at Crozer on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Maybe I will do another column on his astounding number of mistakes.
No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture and he clearly denied the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, His resurrection, and the veracity of Scripture. By any objective standard King was not a Christian. Therefore, on January 15 I will be working as usual then have dinner with friends at our favorite Chinese restaurant. After all, because it is also my birthday, the dinner of steak, shrimp, and Peking duck is free.

You can honor King as a crusader if you please, but not as a legitimate Christian leader. A Christian he was not.

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!”

You really hit bottom when you suggested that fundamental Baptists, as a group, have “pride (and lust from the pride) has created a culture of sexual abuse, anxiety disorders, and a bunch of bible-beating no-knowers because they can’t understand what they are reading because pastors like you are filling their heads with nonsense and man-made doctrines.” You suggested I was a Bible beater or Bible thumper. Here, I must confess that I have, well, it’s difficult to admit but I have thumped my Bible a few times. Not often and not really hard, but I’m guilty. But what does that have to do with truth? Note that you did not offer any examples of “nonsense” or “man-made doctrines.”

You suggested that fundamental Baptists have a systemic problem of sexual abuse, etc., but surely you can’t be that uneducated, unfair, and unreasonable. But, then, maybe so. There is no question that we have our share of adulterers, pedophiles, thieves, and arrogant nuts in our group, but do you want to go tit for tat? I can do so if you want. I have publicly “called out” some of those offending preachers who were friends of mine! Have you ever done that with some of your New Evangelical friends who went astray?

New Evangelicals who only read Christianity Today border on heresy or at least a loosey goosey doctrine (and lifestyle), and they have their share of preachers with zipper trouble. I could start with the former head of the NAE and go on and on. If you were honest, you would admit that all groups have similar problems. Most of the problems would be solved if those men trusted Christ as Savior. They often preach a salvation to others that they have not themselves experienced. It is a tragedy that men, who call others to drink from the water of life, have never drunk themselves and have, instead, muddied the well.

You said that you have “gotten off [my] list a few times.” How many times? Once, twice, thrice, how many? I think maybe you are a little disingenuous if not dishonest. You mentioned that I should have a way for people to get off my list, and you are right. I have that option for my large Preachers List, but I thought that media sources such as yours would want to know the opinions of fundamental journalists like myself. I guess I was wrong. Evidently, you don’t want to hear truth from any source that might challenge your loosey-goosey theological position.

However, your diatribe was somewhat successful in that I will add an option for removal from the mailing list for my columns. There, you see, Fundamentalists can be corrected and move on up to a higher level. But, of course, we will never be able to reach the heights of leading New Evangelicals. But there is a price you will have to pay: You will no longer be privy to my lofty musings, religious ruminating, and soaring flights of purple prose, or my arguments, assumptions, afterthoughts, and appraisals of daily affairs. Too bad.

Moreover, you will not be permitted to read my already-finished columns dealing with Billy Graham (6), Nelson Mandela (4), the church-health care issue (2), Muslim columns (3), higher education series (4), Stupid Statements by Stupid People, Grandmother Sleeps with 900 Men, and my correction of a black liberal columnist for Cox Newspapers (4). I am saddened at your loss. You are really a loser.

As I think about your loss, I realize that you can access those columns by going to my blog! You can do it late at night when no one will ever know how you are playing with fire by reading the works of a Fundamentalist! Just punch in at the top of your computer screen the following: http://donboys.cstnews.com. Those are the magic letters that will open an incredible door of facts, faith, fun, and fellowship for you and no one will know about it! I don’t expect you to change your thinking but you will have some interesting nights of teeth gnashing and grinding.

You had the gall to write, “I tried my best to limit my response in a Godly and loving way but it is hard when you keep sending me such foolishness. I don’t believe it would have mattered if I said it softly and tenderly to you. It is called a harsh rebuke for a reason.” No, a “Godly and loving way” would have been for you to give me credit, as a Christian, for being sincere in writing a column that might help some uninformed people and to also point out error. Then you would have pointed out my mistakes, one by one, so that I would be forced to admit a sloppy job of research. Then you would have challenged me to face the fact of my honest mistakes, repent of those mistakes of carelessness, then print a retraction for libeling innocent men. Then, you and I would be friends for a lifetime. You chose not to do so because you could not do so.

But you did not do the Christian thing and try to help me. You did not point out my “foolishness.” You sent me a “harsh rebuke” because you looked into the mirror and saw a hypocrite who refuses to face the truth and do something about it. You are like many New Evangelicals who are guilt-ridden for repudiating their Fundamentalist background, education, and parents, while delighting in pointing out the warts, blemishes, and scars on fundamentalism.

You closed by asking if I am “really helping the Kingdom of God? Do you really think this strengthens people to ‘love’?” The issue goes back to, “Did I tell the truth?” If I did, then Christianity Today and Chuck Colson looking at the issue honestly would be forced to admit their error regarding King and admit the truth of my position. You see, the historical record is important. What people, especially Christians, believe is important. To permit people to believe that King was a dedicated Christian worthy of emulation would be dishonest, and could be detrimental and disastrous.

Sir Winston Churchill said, “Once in a while a man will stumble over the truth. But most will quickly jump up, brush himself off and hurry on as though he had seen nothing.” You didn’t even brush yourself off.

[Boys new eBook, Martin Luther King Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! Is now available for $3.99 at Amazon.com.]