The four most famous (or infamous) nominees for 2021 are Stacey Abrams, Black Lives Matter, Greta Thunberg, and Donald Trump—his second nomination. Trump has as much chance winning as getting kicked by a snake in Time’s Square even though he led America to the greatest economy in its history, brought an end to wars in the Middle East, and moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Additionally, he kept his promise to slash regulations and lower taxes.

With Abrams, Thunberg, and BLM fanatics, the Nobel Prize has become a frivolous farce for famous fakers. If the Prize Committee gives a standing ovation for such paragons of mediocrity, what will they do when they meet worthy nominees?

It seems everything has been dumbed down.

Shortly after being elected President, Obama was given the Nobel Prize for doing—well, for breathing. Even some honest liberals (a vanishing breed) were embarrassed with that fiasco. Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize was like putting whipped cream on a rotten onion since he was and is an “empty suit.” He may be the least qualified person to be nominated and receive the formerly prestigious award.

When Alfred Nobel died in 1872, he left his fortune to establish prizes as determined by various committees in Sweden and Norway. The professions to be honored for outstanding achievements were physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, for work in peace, and now economics. The Peace Prize is determined by members of the Norway Parliament. So far, so good.

Nobel’s generosity was motived by pride not philanthropy because a French newspaper erroneously printed his obituary, confusing him with his deceased brother. Al was characterized as a “merchant of death” because of his invention of dynamite and instruments of warfare. The paper wrote, “The merchant of death is dead” and went on to say, “Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.” Nobel was horrified that he would be remembered in such a manner and founded the Nobel Prizes to provide him a positive legacy. It worked.

Alfred grew up in the Lutheran Church and attended the Church of Sweden Abroad in Paris. Strangely, his pastor received the Nobel Peace Prize. No, I’m sure he deserved the Prize out of thousands of pastors of all denominations in the world. In later years, Nobel became an atheist but continued to give generously to the church. Alfred never married but had three lovers, one of them receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 1905!

Wow, another amazing coincident! She was Bertha Kinsky, his secretary and lover for a short while, but she left Alfred to marry a baron. If anyone questioned her qualifications (other than being his secretary and lover), one could say, it was “for her audacity to oppose the horrors of war.” Wait a minute if that qualifies one for a Nobel Peace Prize then I qualify for it. Of course, I’m not a pretty blonde like Bertha.

The Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to be given to the person or persons or institutions to recognize “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Evidence is abundant that the Prize has failed to live up to those standards.

In 2021, the Nobel Peace Prize stands for, well, nothing. The past prize holders are a handful of worthies and a gaggle of terrorists, two-faced politicians, empty suits, and malefactors.

Le Duc Tho, a bloody communist leader of Vietnam, was awarded the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize along with Henry Kissinger. Kissinger accepted the award but Tho refused it because peace had not been established in Vietnam. Was the Communist leader more principled than the peace-making Henry Kissinger?

Others who received the Peace Prize include Martin Luther King, Jr., Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore. An observation: It seems that to qualify for the peace prize in modern times one must be an incompetent, a communist, a terrorist, or a socialist. All right, maybe one doesn’t have to fit into one of those categories but it sure seems to help.

Kofi Annan won in 2001 although he was investigated in 2004 for “improperly steering Iraq arms-for-food program contracts to his son.”

But as one reads a list of Prize recipients, it is much worse.

In 1994, Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat was given the peace prize prompting a member of the committee Kåre Gudbrand Kristiansen to resign. In an article for the Times of Israel in 2012, American columnist Jay Nordlinger called Arafat “the worst man ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize.”

Nobel Prize winner Alexis Carrel thought that killers, kidnappers, and even bigtime financial thieves and the mentally ill should be gassed to death. He also had a leading role in implementing eugenic policies in France.

It was reported that famous Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Sir Macfarlane Burnet of Australia, recommended decades ago to his government that they develop biological weapons to use against Indonesia and other nations that were “overpopulated” in Southeast Asia! This Nobel Prize winner suggested that the Aussies should target the crops of other countries with biological chemicals and seek to infect mass populations with infectious diseases!

Other Nobel winners have been a major embarrassment to the memory of Alfred Nobel such as Daniel Carleton Gajdusek, who won in 1976 for his research in human slow-virus infections. Daniel spent 19 months in jail after pleading guilty in 1997 to charges of child molestation. Then there was Johannes Fibiger who won in 1926 for discovering that parasitic worms cause cancer; however, that turned out to be totally false!

The Gold Medals were not returned nor was the award money. And life moves on.

It seems a foregone conclusion that former President Trump will not be honored by the Nobel Prize since many U.S. politicians want to make it illegal to even name a bus stop bench after him.

That leaves Stacey Abrams; however, Stacy is so busy pretending to be Georgia’s Governor, she could not find time to fly to Norway for the big event. But she is an expert on voting. If she is chosen, I will do diligent work to ascertain if she had anything to do with the voting of the committee. Moreover, I don’t think the committee permits mail-in voting nor do they use Dominion Voting Machines. So, Stacey probably should not purchase a ticket to Oslo; however, she may add to her fabricated Georgia Governorship a Fabricated Nobel Peace Prize. By the way, she has never conceded her loss.

Another nominee is Black Lives Matter, a domestic terror group established as an online platform in 2013 by three Marxist revolutionary women who called themselves “queers.” Now keep in mind that this an award for peace yet the BLM organization deleted its “What we Believe” page from its website where it had called on supporters to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” But they failed to be successful in their deception. Deception, disruption, destruction, and death are what BLM is all about. It is determined to defeat our free enterprise system, distort our history, and destroy our historical monuments.

Standing outside the police station where arrested looters were being held, a Black Lives Matter organizer, Ariel Atkins, justified the looting and rioting — which caused an estimated $60 million in damages — as “reparations” to which the black community is entitled.

Yes, most sane people would agree that the Nobel Peace Prize is tarnished if such terrorists receive the award.

The next possible winner is Greta Thunberg—the angry, arrogant, and asinine teenage expert on the environment. Don’t laugh. She may win.

The Nobel Peace Prize has become a joke to informed people in recent years since it has become a farce, fraud, fake, and foolishness.

(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.)

About 40,000 Ph. D.s are given each year in the U.S., while only 337 were awarded in 1903. At the University of Georgia, a Ph.D. candidate in creative writing can submit poems instead of a dissertation. And at the University of Michigan, you can get a Ph.D. in literature without reading Shakespeare. You can get a degree in history without taking an American History course at Harvard University, Georgetown University, the University of Maryland, and many other highly regarded schools. The dumbing down continues in freefall.

American universities have produced 30,000 new Ph.D.’s a year since 1969. That means there are a million to a million and a half Ph.D.s in the United States. And while I respect the Ph.D., I have met some holders that can’t give directions to the restroom. Most people assume all Ph. D.s require a lengthy dissertation; however, there are numerous universities globally that do not.

The assumption is made that one must have a masters before entering a Ph.D. program, but there are many universities around the world where that is not true. However, no university would advertise that they offer Ph. D.s without a master’s degree even when they do.

The leftist media has displayed its true colors as if anyone deaf, dumb, and blind didn’t know them. They often ridiculed anyone with a “Dr.” title if they were not in the medical field, but there are exceptions with Dr. Jill Biden and a few of their pets. The media routinely referred to Cornel West (Ph.D.) and Maya Angelou as “Dr.” even though Angelou never had an earned doctorate, only honorary degrees. She insisted on being called “Dr.” and got away with it because she was black, female, and liberal.

The only way to beat that is to add lesbian, dwarf, and Muslim.

Bill Walsh of the Washington Post declared in 2009. “My feeling is if you can’t heal the sick, we don’t call you doctor,” but the hypocrites at the Post have their favorites. They are very gracious to their own crowd with doctorates, but they ridiculed Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the forceful and articulate conservative and Trump confidant with a Ph.D. Did I mention that liberals are the most illogical, inconsistent, and ignorant people in the world?

The media do the same putdown with Dr. Ben Carson, and he is a famous surgeon; that qualifies as healing the sick. The media mavens realize that any doctorate gives some credibility to a person (whether deserved or not), but they reserve that credibility for their crowd.

I forgot to mention that the liberal media are sanctimonious hypocrites.

I have had the same experience with the title of “Dr.” but faced down talk show hosts who identified my opponent as “Dr.” Smith but me as “Mr.” Boys. At least twice on national television shows, I stopped the discussion and said, “I’m not sensitive, but if we are to continue this show, and it is “Dr.” Smith, then it is “Dr.” Boys. Or we can both be called Mr. or by our first names, but I insist on consistency. I had to work as hard on my Ph.D. as my opponent did.”

When Newsweek and other publications quote me or do a hit piece on me, they never add my Ph.D. or Ed.D. Never. But with their crowd, they use a different rule. The only standard liberals have is the double standard which they almost always follow. While the media usually give support for their spokesmen and denigrate those on the right, they don’t care about truth and principle in the use of titles. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a Ph.D. from Boston University, a fully accredited, respected school of higher learning. However, I don’t know of one example when any of the media revealed that King plagiarized his Ph.D. dissertation.

Oops, I just touched the third rail. While all informed people know that truth, it is not to be mentioned in polite company. The liberal media adhere to that unwritten rule with missionary zeal and faithfulness.

King stole from others all his life. The scholars of the King Papers Project confessed: “King’s plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings.” King’s very friendly biographer David J. Garrow, stated: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions…and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….” Wow, from a friend!

King’s Ph.D. 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 (real name), 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!

When Boston University looked into the plagiarism, they wrote, “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.”

Boston University 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.” And nothing was done except the letter in his file. Do you think Martin Luther Smith would have been treated that way? No, he would have been expelled.

King also stole much of his “I Have a Dream” speech from another black preacher, but the media never, never, never mentions that fact when they quote the speech.

King copied from others, even their mistakes, and he made plenty of his own—misspelling, subject-verb agreement, wrong word usage. A sharp, high school senior at a Christian school would know better. Some of King’s papers written at Crozer Seminary and Boston University revealed his unbelief, his anti-Americanism, and his incredible shallowness and carelessness in grammar and facts. All this is documented in my e-book, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color! Available on Amazon.

King, like other leftists, is protected and promoted by the media. He is always “Dr.” King even with his spurious Ph.D. And to show how sacrosanct he is, some of the news sites that usually publish my columns will refuse to use this one.

While I disagreed with Mr. King as I do with Jill, I don’t mind calling her Dr. Biden.

(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.)

Just preceding King’s statement above, he said, “Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots.” Oh, all right, but I haven’t noticed that happening. He seemed to be saying, “Hey, folks, honest people will look at the whole picture and be consistent in their analyses and condemnation.”

Liberal officials and civil rights leaders seldom are honest but constantly look for an opportunity to blame Whitey. They do their best to place blame rather than encourage minority communities to make tough decisions to rectify their problems. It is easier to blame others than begin the difficult journey back to strong families and communities.

Leftist politicians don’t want the minorities to solve their problems since they want to keep them dependent upon the government. It keeps generations voting for the obnoxious, the opportunists, and the oppressors.

As a result of the Minneapolis shooting, 140 American cities have had violence, the White House is dark as 50 Secret Service agents have been injured and the President of the USA is sitting in an underground bunker.

People have been killed because a black man died after resisting arrest. Assuming that George Floyd was totally innocent and the police officers were wrong, that is no reason for sane people to riot. It is time to use this incident to see that it doesn’t happen again. If there is guilt, then handle it as decent people should in the judicial system and if necessary, by peaceful protest.

Decent people don’t jump to conclusions. Decent people don’t want to see the guilty go free or innocent people suffer. Decent people don’t want to hurt anyone or destroy anything. Decent people will not use the death of a man to unfairly advance a left or right agenda.

Mostly black opportunists have taken control and are using a very bad incident in Minneapolis to their own advantage. Fires were set, stores were looted, and a police station was burned as cops fled the building. Rioting has spread to Louisville, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and other cities. Some have been killed.

Question: Would it not be wiser, fairer, and more reasonable if the police had shot the first looter in Minneapolis? That would be tragic, but after all, he or she was a thief and knew the risk of thievery. The message would be clear: burn and loot, and cops will shoot. That knowledge would tend to quell the most ardent fanatic in the Black Lives Matter rebellion.

It is obvious that the reason the bad guys take control is because of the weak-kneed, pussy-footing, cowardly, jelly-spine mayors, and governors.

Michael Moore, who thinks his purpose in life is to annoy people, added his two cents (overpriced), “Good citizens burning down the evil police precinct in Minneapolis after all police were out and safe. All police should go home.” Good citizens! That is astounding, but then Moore descended into what appears to be a marijuana-spawned dream of an old revolutionary decades ago.

He continued to display his dementia by declaring, “Police headquarters must be demolished by the city tomorrow as a show of contrition to black America. Rebuild Police Department with decent kind people, aka ppl of color.” Moore seems to be crazy as a loon. He desires to appear to be so pro-black, so progressive, that “decent kind people” is synonymous with people of color. Is he so stupid that he doesn’t know that there are good and bad people of every race?

Rap superstar Cardi B (he, she, it, they, etc.) says Minneapolis protesters had “no choice” but to loot. It is incredible that no one has held Cardi’s feet to the fire for making such a statement. The rioters did have a choice. They could have stood peacefully with their signs. They could have written letters to the media. They could elect leftwing progressive Democrats to all political offices. No, I believe they have already done that.

And how has that played out in the five biggest cities in America—all run by progressive Democrats and all experiencing protests and looting?

Tennis has-been Martina Navratilova opined, “Time to riot everywhere,” so the riots are spreading “everywhere.” One black jerk wearing a mask even said, “It’s real bogus, they gotta hit it right, otherwise this is what’s gonna happen, ain’t nothing left here so when we start coming to the suburbs, when we come to the government center, then what y’all gonna do?”

Well, if the mayors in these cities do what historically most mayors did when their city was under siege, such protesters would get a load of buckshot in their rear-ends.

If Blacks want to really protect innocent blacks and promote their leftist agenda, they could really do more than burn down black neighborhoods. They could start by pulling up their pants; staying in high school; then getting a job and learning how life works; getting married and staying married, producing three or four kids; training those children by helping them learn to read good books, even the Bible; taking them to a good church served by a pastor who has a high opinion of the Bible; getting involved in leftist politics and helping elect more people like Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, thereby producing a socialist nation where everything is “free”—except the people.

But that won’t happen. It is too slow and takes too much discipline. So, they will continue to riot.

Would I be accused of advancing my agenda if I ask if normal people have noticed that there are never any riots, fights, trash, beer cans, or cigarette butts on the grounds when conservatives have a right to life rally? Or pro-family, anti-LGBTQ rally? Or home school rally? Or pro-gun rally?

It seems too many minorities have a chip on the shoulder attitude and are continually looking for an excuse to protest, but others turn that into burn, loot, and kill.

Local authorities had better take control now; or thugs, tyrants, and totalitarians will be the catalyst of a revolution that will destroy America, where even the sincere protesters would not want to live.

All according to plan!

(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 Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! 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.)

It is encouraging to see that sexually abused women are turning and confronting their abusers, holding them accountable. Many aggressive, abusive, and audacious men have lost lofty positions, huge sums of money, and may even go to prison. Good! There is little doubt that the women would have more credibility and chances of legal and financial redress had they complained at the time of the abuse or shortly thereafter.

Some powerful members of Congress are being metaphorically horsewhipped in public and chased out of Washington to their backwater towns where they will be humiliated and left to die a natural death. Congressman John Conyers is the first to be chased out of Washington although he characterized his long delayed, disgraceful departure as “retirement.” Yea, that’s about like Pete Rose or Lance Armstrong saying he retired. Or, maybe Richard Nixon saying he retired.

Yes, there is a wind blowing across the fruited plain that has developed into a hurricane force. It may not be a revival of morality but it is at least a return to a modicum of decency. And maybe a return to a minor witch hunt mentality about which we had better be very vigilant. We can be thankful that villagers are not rushing down the streets with pitch forks and tar and feathers in hand. Just a few resignations, pink slips, broken contracts, divorce decrees, and a renewed interest in of prenuptial contracts.

However, I will be convinced that the outrage is genuine when there is a consistency. (Nevertheless, we can be thankful for positive results whether the motives are pure or not.) Ah, yes, sweet consistency. Ralph Waldo Emerson (died 1882) foolishly and falsely declared, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” The fact is Emerson, a failed preacher but successful writer and lecturer, was wrong. He did not believe the Bible or in miracles or that Christ was God, but he was a major proponent of the transcendentalist movement.

An inconsistent person is a dishonest person.

An honest person will react the same way toward all people who are sexually abusive toward any person! So, why has no one decided that Martin Luther King, Jr. should be scorned for his sexual and physical abuse of women? Oops, did I touch a sore spot?

I have a copy of an AP article with the heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat’” following with a graphic description of King’s last night on earth. “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.”

The AP article condenses Abernathy’s detailed account of King’s last night on earth just after he delivered his “I have been to the Mountaintop” speech. It seems after King went to the mountaintop he and a male friend went to the home of “a friend” of King’s. Abernathy is quoted as saying that “Martin and his [female] friend” came out of the bedroom after 1 a.m. then King and his male friend returned to the Lorraine Motel where King got together with “a black woman…a member of the Kentucky Legislature” with whom King had a “close” relationship. Abernathy admitted that King did not return to the motel room (that they shared) until after 7 a.m.

King was only 12 hours from death at the hands of a white supremacist with a cheap rifle in his sweaty hands. He was shot at 6:01 p.m. and died at a Memphis hospital at 7:05 p.m.

The morning of the day of King’s death, he asked his best friend Abernathy to settle a dispute between himself and “another young woman Martin knew well” who had come looking for King earlier that night. Evidently, Abernathy was not very successful in dispute resolution because King shouted at the woman and “knocked her across the bed” according to King’s best friend.

Well, not your typical Baptist preacher! However, many people reading this will foam at the mouth for my writing this but won’t be disturbed about King’s activities!

But it gets worse, much worse!

The Assistant Director of the FBI, Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Senator John P. East of North Carolina in which he stated that King’s activities consisted of “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.” How can any honest feminist not condemn King’s violence and treating women like objects to be used and cast away? They will not because of a lack of character, courage, and convictions.

FBI Assistant Director William Sullivan, who was in charge of the bugging of King’s hotel rooms, said that King also had affairs with many married women. In an incident in New York City, King got drunk and asked a young female civil rights worker to satisfy his weird sexual tastes and when she refused, he threatened to jump from the skyscraper window. She changed her mind and satisfied the reverend.

Many newspapers reported on the files released by the National Archives concerning the death of President Kennedy (some files related to King): “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.

King tried to justify his immorality by saying that everyone did it. This was reported by the London Daily Mail on January 17, 2017: “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 an incredible insult to every black preacher in America, including some good friends of mine.

David J. Garrow is a well-known leftist author and 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 any reader accept that excuse from their pastor as justification for unfaithfulness to a wife? I think not.

The only explanation for a conspiracy of silence regarding King’s use and misuse of women is an excessive, almost sick, hero worship that is normal in children but abnormal, abhorrent, and absurd in adults.

Some tell us that a Black must be able to walk on water before he can be accepted as a black leader but we don’t demand that. We do expect a leader, white or black, to be decent, fair, consistent, honest, law-abiding, and a gentleman in his interaction with women.

Let’s be thankful for this resurgence, reverence, and return of sensitivity for decency and a concern for the safety of women; but be sure we are consistent in honoring the truth without giving any person–politician, preacher, performer, or product peddler a pass for sexual abuse of anyone.

Yes, a new day has arrived for which all people should be grateful, but let’s be consistent in our concern toward the victims and our condemnation toward the villains.

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

In plowing through King’s writings during the holidays, I found that he was very careless and poorly educated. He often started a sentence with the first two letters in caps, he repeated words, and he left the suffix or “s” off words. Misspellings are numerous and he seldom used commas! He evidently did not know the difference in led and lead since he made that mistake many times. He also did not know that there is no word undermind confusing it with undermine. His work is not the quality of a seminary student but maybe an average college freshman!

King’s major problem was his heresy. He easily disassociated himself from traditional Christianity and it is shocking that so many Christians and Conservatives refuse to hold his feet to the theological fire. Principled people traffic in truth and eschew error in anyone and everyone. Such people do not bow to “sacred cows.”

In a paper written on the “Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East,” I discovered eight spelling, punctuation, and composition mistakes in nine consecutive lines! Moreover, King posited the theological error that Scripture was subpoenaed to “appear before the judgement [sic] seat of reason.” He continued: “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.

He clearly asserted that the book of Jeremiah was not infallible. He also espoused the heretical view that the 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.” He is saying the contradictions, conflicts, and confusion of non-biblical books are better than the God-inspired books!

He also decided that the Genesis accounts of man’s creation and the Flood were not original–or accurate. King concluded that the writer of Genesis took information from the Gilgamesh Epic. King was like all unbelievers who jump at the opportunity to denounce, deny, and denigrate the Word of God and praise pagan literature.

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.” No, the “contradictions” were in King’s life, not in the Scripture. And Moses did write the Pentateuch.

In a 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,” King let the kitty out of the sack as to his heresy. Note the title alone is incriminating. The doctrines of Christ did not come about because of “experiences” of the early Christians! They came about because the Holy Spirit moved upon men to write about eternal truths.

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.” Untenable means something that cannot be defended or maintained. You only thought you could defend the doctrines surrounding Christ.

He added, “Saint Paul and the early church followers could have never come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine if there had not been some uniqueness in the personality of the historical Jesus.” 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 a great speaker, a crusader, and had courage but he was not a believer! He had no regard for truth. He can be respected for his contribution to civil rights but not revered, respected, and remembered as a Christian leader for that he was not.

My critics should remember Socrates’ concept that “a man must not be honored above the truth.” So, I won’t be honoring King this year as I have not in past years.

Boys’ eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! is 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, click here. An eBook edition is also available.

A lie doesn’t become truth with time, talk, or twisting. Likewise, wrong does not become right; and evil doesn’t become good because it is accepted by the majority. I would rather experience hateful truth than loving error. Truth is often unpleasant but unpleasant truth is not always hate speech. The more society drifts away from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.

The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once noted, “All Truth progress through the same three stages: First with ridicule, then with violent opposition, and finally acceptance as self-evident.”  I have observed that throughout history and throughout my life.

People prompted by principle will stand for truth when they are first exposed to it even if they know it will annoy and destroy them. Truth will inform you and reform you. Unused truth becomes useless as an unused muscle. Roman statesman and historian Cicero declared: “The first law for the historian is that he shall never dare write an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true.” I will follow that maxim today.

Tolstoy declared, “I know that most men…can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.” That will be a problem with the reading of this column. However, when a man of principle gets new truth that conflicts with what he has always taught, he either changes his mind or loses his principles.

The 18th-century scientist/philosopher Georg Lichtenberg said, “It is almost impossible to carry the torch of truth through a crowd without singeing somebody’s beard.” I am sure I will singe some beards today because I will deal with truth as it relates to an American icon.

In March of 1993 I sent a note to the editor of USA Today and told him not to waste money sending me my annual contract. I quit. Some of my closest friends thought I had lost my mind since the largest paper in the world gave me an opportunity to express my very Christian and Conservative views–and paid me for doing it! I quit because of truth. I got my gig at the national paper because I came to the defense of my friend Jerry Falwell who was castigated by the media and academia for saying Bishop Tutu was a phony. Of course, he was a phony; but because Tutu was a religious leader and a leading South African Black, the truth was rejected. I sent a column to the paper in Jerry’s defense, and they sent me a check and a contract! They were looking for a “token fundamentalist.”

The editor knew I traveled across America, Europe, and the Middle East and told me to inform him what was “hot” at the time and we would deal with it on the daily “Opinion Page.” One day it was guns, another day AIDS, next abortion, next street people, etc. However, when I told him I wanted to do an article (four other authors including the editor would also deal with the subject) on Senator Ted Kennedy romping on the floor of a major Washington restaurant with a waitress, he refused to deal with the subject. The story never was published. I thought truth was important.

When I returned from a brief stay in London after a Middle East trip I told the editor that Martin Luther King’s plagiarism of his Ph.D. dissertation was hot news in England and I wanted to do an article on the subject. The editor refused to permit it. It seems truth was not important to the paper. On Nov. 9, 1990, The Wall Street Journal broke the story that USA Today could have published.

That was not too surprising since every January 10 or 11 I sent him an article dealing with Martin Luther King, Jr. I believed four other people would deal very positively with him but I would not seek to ingratiate myself to the liberal loonies on the left or the radical rascals on the right. I was never extreme other than reporting the facts with few opinions. The articles were never accepted in my eight years I was under contract to them. One year they did an Opinion Page dealing with King but refused to use any King article I had submitted. All five articles on the “King Debate” were positive. Not one word of criticism. Debate? Truth? Fair? Balanced?

Although my adult life demonstrates the absence of racism, I suppose I must establish here my bona fides as an unbiased Christian Conservative–not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal hater of Blacks. I have dear Black friends who visit in our home and we in theirs; others we have financially supported. My childhood hero was Booker T. Washington; and some of my favorite people are Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and Ben Carson whom I would like to have as friends and neighbors. Plus, I supported Herman Cain for President. I may be a rascal but not a racist.

So, surely no sane person can accuse me of racism because I am critical of King. One may think I am wrong but no one will reasonably charge me of being racist. That charge has been hurled my way all my adult life and when that happens, I know I have won the discussion or debate.

I believe truth still matters. When I was a young preacher I vowed to speak and write the truth without regard to family, friends, foes, or finances. I have tried to keep that vow and hope my epitaph announces, “Here lies Don Boys, a preacher and author who couldn’t be bought.”

The truth will set us free but sometime it stings as in the case of King. King was courageous and charismatic, but short on character. He was a gifted speaker and natural leader usually without fear–all commendable attributes. But there is more than that. Here are some facts about King followed by a few opinions. No one can disagree with facts while everyone can disagree with my opinions.

King was an admitted adulterer according to his own admission to Parade Magazine; his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy (And the Walls Came Tumbling Down); the FBI tapes; and reported by his very friendly Pulitzer prize-winning biographer. It seems that sleeping with female members of his church was the norm rather than the exception and King declared that he didn’t know a single black preacher who was chaste! Of course, that is an outrageous, slanderous statement and falsely indicts many Blacks who are faithful to the Bible and their wives. Or, it could indicate the religious leaders with whom he ran!

Repeated immorality should be sufficient to tarnish King’s image since principled people don’t endorse people who don’t keep their marriage vows. Many progressives will not be concerned with that while all principled people will be.

King plagiarized many of his seminary papers (and included all the mistakes), many of his books, and his masterful “I have a Dream” speech. That speech was taken from another black preacher who delivered it at the 1952 Republican National Convention. Question: why has no national media outlet ever mentioned that fact when praising the speech?

Truth matters to me. That’s why I “go on the record” about King without being mad, mean, or malicious. When the King FBI tapes are released in 2027, thinking people will realize that I have been rather mild in my position on King. Truth is never relative. There are no half-truths and there are no degrees of truth. You have faced truth today. How will you handle it?

I’m not promoting a crusade to remove the King national holiday although it is embarrassing what Congress did to remain politically correct and keep the votes and money coming in. I am simply an educator, preacher, and apologist trying to inform my readers about truth.

I think truth still matters.

(Boys has written a brief eBook titled, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color. Available at amazon.com for $4.95 or sent free via email to anyone who sends a request to DBoysphd@aol.com)

(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.)

Recently, Oliver Stone dropped out of writing and directing the much anticipated MLK film because the King people in Atlanta rejected his script. They refused to permit the truth being told since Stone planned to deal with “issues of adultery, conflicts within the movement, and King’s spiritual transformation.” It is incredible that honest people do not demand the truth, however unpleasant, about their heroes. It seems that those who lean left are basically dishonest people who will do anything to preserve their myths. King’s family and other leftists are still white-washing his image; after all, big bucks are involved as everyone knows who has dealt with King’s family.

Since this is a national holiday, in the interest of truth, I present the following incontrovertible facts about King. My readers can then decide if I’m a racist or a realist interested in truth.

King was a pinko: King’s very liberal biographer, David J. Garrow, wrote: “King privately described himself as a Marxist.” The Rev. Uriah J. Fields, King’s secretary during the early stage of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with communists.”

Liberal black newspaper columnist Carl Rowan attended National Security Council meetings and was permitted to see confidential FBI files on King. Rowan said that King was known to be a Communist since May of 1962 when King’s name was “placed in Section A …tabbed Communist” in the FBI’s files. William Sullivan, Assistant Director of the FBI, concluded at the time, King was “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security.” Sullivan was a major supporter of King!

King was a philander: Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” That’s from a friend!

King’s friendly biographer, David J. Garrow 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.” Oh, well, that makes his adultery and betrayal of his marriage vows and ordination vows acceptable–maybe even commendable!

An AP article should be a knockout blow for those who worship at King’s image with its heading, “FBI and Abernathy Say King Was a Sex-obsessed ‘Tomcat.’” That was followed with a graphic description of King’s last night on earth. “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.” Preachers are supposed to “fight a good fight” but King perverted that teaching–in spades.

Assistant Director of the FBI Charles D. Brennan wrote a letter to Senator John P. East of North Carolina in which he stated that King’s activities consisted of “orgiastic and adulterous escapades, some of which indicated that King could be bestial in his sexual abuse of women.”

King was a pervert: Black columnist Carl Rowan reported that the FBI tapes suggest that there was a homosexual relationship between King and his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy! Black talk show host and columnist Tony Brown added more light on this possibility when he reported on King’s banter to Abernathy in one of their hotel rooms. However, it was so vulgar, I will not even disguise King’s request to his “best friend.”

Martin was a prevaricator: The head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, said that King was the “most notorious liar” in America and also said that “King is a tom cat with obsessive degenerate urges.” King also lied about his name all his life; he lied to his ordination committee; he lied to his wife; he lied on his college and seminary papers; he lied in his books; he lied when he said he fired Communists on his payroll; he lied when he said that twice as many blacks died in Vietnam than whites. Hoover was right.

King was a plagiarist: King stole from others all his lifetime as was supported by King’s people in Atlanta! “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.” Note King’s family excused his plagiarism calling it “textual appropriation.”

King’s biographer David J. Garrow states: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions…and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more….” Why did they not expect more? It is a fact that King stole 66% of his Ph.D. dissertation! It seems Boston University wanted to give a doctorate to an unqualified and dishonest man, therefore played the game.

In his seminary papers, King reproduced the research and writings of others but he also incorporated their many errors, grammatical as well as theological!

King was a phony: In another paper King wrote that “the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.” He other papers King denied Christ’s virgin birth and vicarious death and visible return of Christ. Martin Luther King was an unbeliever! He was a phony preacher and phony Christian!

What would be the reaction if a national holiday were suggested to honor a man, even a good man, who had past ties with the Klan or Nazis? Would it not be expected that everyone would demand that he answer some questions and his life be looked at very closely? Why is King an exception? And why are conservatives playing this game of whitewashing King’s reputation? Obviously, truth is unimportant.

To sum up: There is no argument. As usual, I’ll be accused of racism but it’s only the facts. King was a pinko, a philander, a pervert, a prevaricator, a plagiarist and a phony. That doesn’t bother most people but it does bother honest people.

(All documentation is in my eBook, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character Not His Color! available at amazon.com for $4.99.)

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!” And pass it on!

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

I had a very public record of fair treatment for everyone without cutting any additional slack for Blacks. I determined to treat everyone the same so I was against any affirmative action and had debated a black columnist and an Indiana University professor on the subject at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI). I won the debate!

I angered some black leaders and liberal politicians when I cast the lone vote against a “memorialization” of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the Indiana House of Representatives. I was the only “no” vote in the House and the senate. Same the following year! An AP reporter asked me why I voted “no” since the vote had no value and was only symbolic. I told her that I did not have time to go into detail, but it was a matter of principle. King was an admitted adulterer and had defended the Communist Viet Cong while Americans were dying in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia. My vote had nothing to do with race or civil rights. That House vote was long before leftists and other non-thinkers rammed a MLK national holiday through congress and clubbed Ronald Reagan into signing it into law in 1983.

In addition to being a member of the House of Representatives, I was also administrator of the Indianapolis Baptist Academy. And of course, we had some black students who had to meet the same standards as the white students. They easily did.

As school administrator I often had my new friend, the famous black preacher, speak at the school and even invited him and his wife to travel with us to Israel and the Middle East–free. I had taken groups to the Middle East for many years and when I organized the school we decided to take the senior class with us for their senior trip! No school, public or private had ever done that. I gave my “earned” tours to the class members and to the black pastor and his wife. He lectured us each night at our hotel after a long day of touring.

Over the years, he and I became friends although he persisted in calling me “Dr. Boys” even though I often chided him for doing so. We had a very normal, friendly, brotherly relationship with never a hint of any problem even though I had a very public reputation as a conservative.

From all indications he was also conservative. In one of our times together he told me of his conversation, maybe confrontation, with black leaders at a national meeting of the NAACP in St. Louis. He told one of the leaders, “Why is the group called the National Association of Colored People? Why not try to advance all people and since I am a part of all, it will advance me?” Those were not his exact words but similar and true to the facts. Well, that impressed me and I wished I had asked that question. So, I assumed we were in agreement on racial issues. I never felt a need to “walk softly” when we were together. He was simply a friend who happened to be black.

Then I spoke at a meeting of clergymen in an eastside suburb and my black friend spoke in the afternoon to the totally white congregation. I might add that he was treated with kindness and affection by the group that represented Indiana Baptist preachers. During his very eloquent (as always) message, he did something that many preachers do: he started chasing rabbits. He shocked us by saying, “You are very pleased to call me brother but fearful and hesitant to call me ‘brother-in-law’ or ‘son-in-law.’” That was the first time my friend had run off the racial rails to my knowledge.

At our lunch meeting a few months later, I asked, “Brother, do you think it is possible for me to believe that forced school bussing is stupid and unfair to Blacks and Whites and affirmative action is unfair and detrimental to Blacks and Whites, and that Martin Luther King was an admitted serial adulterer and did not believe the truths that all Christians believe, and then do you think that believing all that makes me a racist?” He hung his head and said, “Yes, Dr. Boys, I think that makes you a racist!” I was surprised, shocked, and speechless!

My friend is in Heaven now and no longer believes what he said. I am still alive and believe the same thing I believed in that restaurant in 1978. Time changes; circumstances change; people change; but facts remain: all people should be treated like people. No special rights because of race, religion, or gender.

If that makes me a racist in the eyes of some, I can live with it. But all sane, sensible, and smart people can identify the true racists who see everything through racist eyes.

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

Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.

An evangelical leader of a news website used his hatchet on my blonde scalp, not sure if he wanted to scalp me or decapitate me. Evidently he couldn’t handle the truth just like Christianity Today and Chuck Colson! Too bad, but I removed him from my master list and because of his diatribe, I have developed a way that will hopefully guarantee that he will not get back on.

I thought news websites would want to receive timely and controversial columns but evidently not so. However, I will answer his diatribe since he needs to read it; but he doesn’t have the guts or courage to reply in a sane, sensible, and scriptural way. Everyone knows you can’t defend the indefensible–-

You said that you could quote Scripture to answer me but please note that you did not. Then you intimated that I would not accept your answer unless it came from the KJV; however, you are wrong, but then, I suppose that happens often to you. Yes, I believe the KJV is inerrant, infallible, as well as inspired. (Remember when all Bible believers believed and used those terms?) That does not mean that I would not use many passages in other versions, especially since many verses are almost the same as the KJV. You probably don’t know, but many years ago many evangelists often preached a sermon from the Catholic Bible or the Jehovah Witness Bible, etc., and many people were saved from that preaching. Yes, there are some KJV people who would not do that but it was common in the past. So, you made a wrong assumption about me.

You sarcastically wrote, “I can never figure out just which version of the KJV you guys deem actually from God” suggesting a major difference in the revisions, but obviously you are uninformed. There were revisions done in 1629, 1638, 1762, and in 1769 that were, for the most part, correcting printing errors, using different fonts, updating spelling, and some modernizing of words that were obsolete. KJV haters often imply that there were major differences in the various early revisions, but that is untrue.

You characterized my column with a movie quote: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!” Now, I assume from that quote, that you did not like what I wrote. Too bad, you were not honest and competent enough to point out where I was wrong. But then you did not because you could not. If you could, you would or at least you should. Any moron knows that.

I haven’t been to a movie since 1951, so I had to research what movie you were quoting. Not being very fluent, you chose “Billy Madison,” a vulgar, vile, and vain movie, to express your distaste for my column and me. For sure, it was a little less than Shakespearean!

It seems my simple pleading for truth about Martin Luther King was more offensive than the movie’s vulgar dialogue! Were you indignant at such language in the movie? Did you walk out? Were any children with you? Were you embarrassed, even a little? Did you think of the statement Bible preachers used to make like, “Would you be embarrassed and ashamed if the rapture took place while you were there?” Oh, but maybe you don’t believe in the rapture, sorry for the assumption, but surely you believe in purity. Well, at least you believe in Hollywood!

It is obvious that you only have a little knowledge as is evidenced by your statement that we Fundamentalists think to “be separate” from the world means to attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. I’m a lifetime fundamental Baptist and I have never heard that before! Never! We do preach, as did the Apostle Paul (remember him?), that Christians are to be apart from the world. We should be Christian in our talk, our walk, our dress, our entertainment, our business, our family life and so on without being nuts. We are supposed to be peculiar (I Pet. 2:9) without being odd.

Is that a strange teaching? It may be for New Evangelicals but for those who are committed to the fundamentals of the Bible, it is normal Christian living.

Martin Luther 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 wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will do the same?
Some “conservatives” need to do likewise!

Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?

Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” Neuhaus is a well-known liberal theologian and writer. My research also 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.

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 in the present? If I am wrong, please correct me.

No person deserves to be called a journalist if he refuses to look at both sides of an issue or if he/she refuses to give proper weight to all arguments because of prejudice. If a writer is fearful of where the truth will lead him, he should be selling insurance.

During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I asked the editor if I could do a column on King’s plagiarism, however, I never got permission. I had read the story of King’s literary thievery in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips from the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. The Wall Street Journal broke the story a couple of months later although they did so gingerly.

It is noteworthy that the American 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. When you quote King you don’t know whom you are quoting!

Why is there little debate in the King controversy? 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 did a page dealing with him. I have one issue that has five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere.

Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus numerous one night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual having been heard during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. King was also caught running naked after a woman down a Norway hotel hallway during his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize! 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 the Bible, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His virgin birth and his physical resurrection so according to II John he should not be honored; in fact, no one should “bid him God speed.” Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, ever seeking to get lost men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Never happened because he did not believe that was essential.

King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani and assorted Republicans was a man without character, and informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.

While 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. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!

The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak to the issue 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.” It was the only time I did not follow my principles while in office.

King does not deserve a national holiday but instead he should be exposed as a fraud, a fake, and a fool, and I would feel the same about a white conservative!

As for celebrating King’s birthday, I will not do so but I will take the day off since it is my birthday!