The Washington Post reported of Teresa, “Her saintly reputation was gained for aiding Kolkata’s poorest of the poor, yet it was undercut by persistent allegations of misuse of funds, poor medical treatments and religious evangelism in the institutions she founded.” However, in her defense, what is wrong with her religious evangelism? After all, she was a Catholic nun! Not only is the Washington Post guilty of fake news, it also has an antireligious agenda.

Moreover, the British medical journal Lancet published a critical account of the care provided in Teresa’s facilities in 1994, repeating what many others have reported. Many former volunteers have testified of patients receiving no pain medicine and nuns washing needles in cold water to be used again!

It has been suggested that the Roman Church used Teresa’s image of compassion to support Catholicism and to distract from the priest pedophilia scandals around the world. I’m not sure that is a legitimate criticism.

Teresa was strongly criticized, even by some of the Roman Catholic media, when she endorsed Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s suspension of civil liberties in 1975. Teresa said of Gandhi’s India, “People are happier. There are more jobs. There are no strikes.” She was often careless in her statements.

Penn and Teller’s Showtime show whose title is obscene did an episode titled “Holier than Thou” in 2005 that criticized Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama! Their main concern was her association with Keating and the Duvalier family as well as the quality of medical care given in her homes. That complaint has been made by many.

To her credit, Teresa was a long-time anti-abortionist and, after winning the Nobel Prize in 1979, she said in her acceptance speech that the “greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.” She also angered Bill and Hillary Clinton when she spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington in February 1994, where she argued that abortion was a mother murdering her own child! Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter of former President Ronald Reagan, wrote that Bill and Hillary “sat there, in the glare of the hot lights, all eyes in the crowd fixed upon them, as they tried not to move or be noticed, conspicuous in their lack of response, clearly uncomfortable as the applause raged on.” Bill, Hillary, and Al Gore were as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes.

Teresa had theological problems as well as problems with principle. She was asked if she ever converted people (or only fed the hungry, lifted the poor, etc.) and she replied, “Of course I convert. I convert you to be a better Hindu or a better Muslim or a better Protestant. Once you’ve found God, it’s up to you to decide how to worship him.” That is heresy. No real Christian believes that.

But then, maybe I was correct on a London talk show when I suggested that she was not a Christian but only a Catholic. (Just as there are many Baptists who are not Christians.) Following her death, her letters to various confessors of the past 60 years were read and caused a major stir world-wide. Author Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk revealed Teresa’s emptiness since “the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever.” He adds, “Neither in her heart or in the Eucharist.”

Teresa expressed her anguish, doubt, and fears when she bemoaned the “dryness,” “darkness,” “loneliness” and “torture” she was undergoing. The author wrote, “She [Teresa] compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God.”

In one letter Teresa wrote, “Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith.” This was expressed by a woman who became a “saint” in 2016, but I am a Baptist who became a saint the day I trusted Christ. Furthermore, I have never had a similar dark, foreboding experience in over 65 years of being a Christian.

She lived in a period of darkness all her life and cried, “If there be no God — there can be no soul — if there is no Soul then Jesus — You also are not true.” As she smiled to the world, she wrote to another confessor, “I have come to love the darkness.” John 3 tells us that men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil.

My critics will be angry that I did not call her Mother Teresa but she was not my mother. My mother was Emma and while she was not an activist in the slums of Zanesville, nor did she lift the sick and poor from the gutters, she was a godly woman who knew Christ as her Savior. I am convinced she is in Heaven.

I’m not positive where Teresa is today.

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

Many parts of the world were obsessed with the two deaths and as the 20th anniversary approaches, Europe is sweep up in a bizarre mania. “Diana-mania” is spreading from Britain (and advancing in America) to all of Europe as the death anniversary looms. I have written about both women in columns and in my yet to be published memoirs: Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Regrets! The information below comes from those sources.

Within days of Diana’s death, I had one of my best opportunities to present the Gospel while appearing on a British talk show dealing with Princess Diana and Teresa. Immediately following Diana’s death August 31, 1997, a Pentecostal church in London went public with her final destination and it wasn’t Heaven! The show’s producer asked me to discuss her death and asked if Diana went to Hell because she had been visiting nightclubs and bars the night of her death. When I was asked that question during the show, I hesitated a little since this was an extremely hot topic and so close to her death. I said, “Well, no one can be sure what happens in the final seconds of a person’s life. Who knows what sermons a person has heard or what a parent or preacher has taught them that might flash through the dying person’s mind at the last minute. So I can’t know for sure.” My answer was a little soft, and sure, but safe.

After softening up the audience all over Great Britain and the host who was also a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, I steadied myself and said, “Deathbed conversions are highly unlikely since there is only one such experience in the Bible and Christ is the One who won the dying thief hanging beside him, promising him that he would be with Him that day in Paradise.” I ended by saying, “I would not give much chance of Diana’s last minute conversion to Christ. Princess Diana is probably in Hell tonight.” There was a loud gasp from the audience.

I thought my appearance was over but the host said, “Well, what about Mother Teresa?” who had died six days after Diana’s death. I cringed. We had not discussed Teresa’s death in pre-show preparation. Teresa was a Catholic icon who spent her life in the ghettos of India. She was known as the “Saint of the Gutters” and it is one thing to suggest that an adulterous, boozing, former princess was in Hell but something else to suggest that one of the most kind, sacrificing, inauspicious do-gooders of history might not be in Heaven! Of course, no one can be sure about anyone except himself.

The talk show host continued, “Does that mean Mother Teresa is not in Heaven?” I gulped, thought for a second, and said, “Well, I can’t know any person’s heart but if Teresa trusted the Roman Catholic Church, or baptism, or her good and admirable works to get her to Heaven, she is not there.” The show’s host gasped! I felt like a skunk at a ladies’ tea party.

I told the host, “Good people don’t necessarily go to Heaven and bad people don’t necessarily go to Hell.” She was astounded and said, “Would you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I made it very clear that people go to Heaven after placing personal faith in the shed blood of Christ.

I was on a roll so I continued, “In fact, there are people in Hell tonight who, while on this earth, lived a better life than some people in Heaven.” She was shocked again and said, “Will you please explain that?” I was thrilled to do so. I explained that some people are genuine Christians but are very nominal in their daily living while there were non-Christians who are more noble, kind, decent, and benevolent but have never experienced the New Birth by trusting Christ as Savior.

What a show! I reached more people in that one hour than D. L. Moody did in his London crusade–but without his results! In addition to making the plan of salvation very clear, even stark, I tried to emphasize that real salvation results in the change of the morals, mores, manners, and motives of the convert.

There is no doubt that evangelical and fundamental Christians can learn something from Teresa who ministered to the unwanted, unloved, and uncared for and Diana who appeared to be a loving mother. No one should be more concerned for the poor, disadvantaged, hurting, sick, hungry people of the world than Christians. I think we could be more involved than we are; although many of us give to world missions, feed the hungry, provide clean water, medical missions, go to mission fields, etc., but we could probably do much more without sacrificing the essential message that only Christ saves.

Moreover, the Social Gospelers have confused personal responsibility with the churches’ responsibility. A church must never get her eyes off the main goal of taking the Gospel to the world and then training for Christian service those who believe it, while having outreaches for the poor. However, as individuals we should also support outreaches to the poor and needy but we must use discretion since many secular organizations are not worthy of support. My wife and I have supported those individuals we know who deserve support, help for flood victims, earthquake relief, providing portable generators for native churches in Central America, and efforts to bring clean water to desperate African villages. Such activities are not the major job of churches.

Teresa did not appear sophisticated; however, she or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end—raising money for her cause. She had connections with rich, famous people who funded her charity according to Christopher Hitchens in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. Some of those “sugar daddies” were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), Charles Keating, and other scoundrels such as Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha who ruled for 40 years. Hoxha was married and although homosexuality was illegal in Albania, he is commonly believed to have had perverted relations most of his adult life. It is said that he used to take handsome Albanian soldiers to bed with him and then have them shot the next morning.

One egregious example is Teresa’s relationship with Charles Keating of the Lincoln S&L shame. Keating gave more than a million dollars to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud for bilking 23,000 investors out of their money, she wrote Judge Ito telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. Teresa advised the judge to “do what Jesus would do.” I’m not sure what Jesus would have done, but the judge gave Keating ten years for fraud. Keating served four-and-a half years in prison.

Following the trial, Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, “After all, that is what Jesus would have done.” The good nun never answered his letter nor returned the stolen money. After all, it was for the “poor.”

Teresa was also involved with Princess Diana who sought consolation when she was divorced. Teresa said that the divorce was unfortunate but was probably a good thing! However, Teresa took the opposite position when Ireland was debating what to do about their prohibition of divorce and remarriage. It seems the nun was an opportunist, especially when it fit her agenda. Her agenda was to raise money for her charity by schmoozing up to rich and famous people. She raised a fortune but never built a hospital, or hospice, or home for children in India but did build convents in more than 150 countries! There has never been an accounting of the fortune she raised.

CNN reported on Teresa’s charity declaring, “It’s true there’s no transparency–and very little information available–on the group’s bookkeeping. CNN‘s request to interview the current head of the organization was declined.”

But sainthood continued on the fast track and Teresa is now a beloved Roman Catholic saint.

Is a secular sainthood in the works for Princess Diana?

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

I have heard that argument many times on talk shows. Death penalty opponents suggest that in fairness, society should not execute people, especially poor people since no rich people have been executed in America with the exception of one mobster in 1944 and a drug kingpin in 2001! I tell them that more poor people are executed for murder because they commit more murders! After all, there are more poor people than rich people. It is also a fact that rich people don’t usually have the motives to kill as often. They have money, friends, and possessions so they usually only kill during very emotional times–hatred, jealousy, or revenge.

Of course, when a rich person kills another person, he or she should get the death penalty as poor people do. Yes, rich people can afford better lawyers than poor people, but that is a fact of life that must be accepted.

We are also told that more poor Blacks are executed than whites; however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not discriminate against Blacks. Furthermore, a Stanford University study revealed that killers of Whites (whether the killers are black or white) are more likely to get sentenced to death than killers of black people (whether the killers are black or white). But Blacks who kill Whites were less likely to receive death sentences than were Whites who killed Whites. Doesn’t sound like discrimination to me unless maybe it is reverse discrimination!

It is also interesting that women commit about 13% of the murders in the U.S. yet less than 1% are executed. Maybe we can expect the screaming ladies of NOW to do something about this glaring inequality and injustice. Unless you look good in blue, don’t hold your breath until the feminists carry signs demanding, “Execute more women,” “Equality on Death Row,” or “Put more women on death row.”

We must demand that all people be treated like people whatever their color, gender, or social status. The answer is to mete out punishment fairly, not drop it altogether. A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) found that in 2005, “there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent (sic) manslaughter nationally; there were 60 executions.” That is not justice.

“But if we execute all the killers (2,943) on death row in the various states, that would be a bloodbath,” say the nonthinkers. However, we have a bloodbath going on every day. There’s a bloodbath in Chicago, Baltimore, and St. Louis; and almost all the victims are poor and black.

If there is going to be a bloodbath, let it be the blood of convicted killers–rich or poor. If the 50 states were to execute all 2,943 killers tomorrow morning at 6:00, it would sure send a message to other potential killers, wouldn’t it? Of the 2,943 convicted killers on death row, about half are white, half are black, and 2,888 are male, and 55 are female.

Authorities must also get the message that felons should be in prison, not on the streets. Streets are for people who obey and respect the law. Rebels, even poor rebels, belong in prison. But at least 30% of those arrested for violent crimes were on probation, parole, or on bail when the crimes were committed. We must send officials a message: keep violent criminals in prison until their sentences are served!

The U.S. Justice Department’s annual report revealed that two-thirds of those on death row had prior felony convictions and a full 10% of those killers had murdered before! That 10% should not have been permitted to prey on innocent people because they should have been executed after their first murder. You’ve heard of three strikes and you’re out, but it should be one strike and you’re dead. No second chance for killers–poor or rich.

Scores of people have told me on talk shows that an innocent person may be executed so we should do away with the death penalty, especially since most of them are poor. Well, since we live in an imperfect world, I’ll concede the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. But without the death penalty, there will be the certainty of many more innocent killings.

I have also heard the old canard that it is better to let a hundred guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man. Now, I’m not advocating executing innocent people, and the thought is horrifying, but it is an inane statement. We are comparing one innocent man to hundreds of other innocent people who would be killed if the hundred killers went free. Those on the other side of this issue don’t think.

Often the opponents of the death penalty affirm that many poor innocent people have been executed who could not afford top legal advice, so executions are unjust. As usual, they are wrong. They usually quote the Stanford Law Review to prove their contention, but they didn’t read the complete article! Professors Bedan and Radelet looked at 2,300 capital crime convictions since 1900 and said they thought 25 men were wrongly executed. The professors “believed” the men were innocent, but they did not prove their case. They even listed notorious cases such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Hauptmann, the Rosenbergs, etc., all cold-blooded killers and traitors whose cases were reviewed by various courts. The professors ended up admitting, “…in none of the cases…can we point to any state action indicating the belief that the person executed was innocent.” Evidently, my critics never read the full article.

Yes, it could happen. It may have already happened, but it is unlikely with all the restrictions placed on the police, the emphasis on the rights of the accused, the jury trial, numerous appeals, DNA, and usually a long period on death row. Add to that the fact that most governors hand out pardons like campaign literature and are gutless “crybabies” who are super-sensitive to the bellowing and whining from leftist groups who have never seen a guilty killer they didn’t like.

Justice requires that no one should receive special treatment because he is poor, or rich, or sick, or young, or old, or famous, or infamous, or handsome, or ugly, or popular or hated.

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.

The hawkers have arrived before him and prepared the way with all kinds of merchandise for the faithful–for a price. With a choice of 193 “official” items, you can choose a T-shirt with the Pope’s likeness; an “exclusive Pope Francis Bobblehead” for $19.95; an “I Love Pope Francis” mug for $14.95; a “Pope Francis Rosary Keychain” for $4.95; a 4-inch “Pope Francis Figurine” for $11.95; a “Pope Francis Plush Doll” for $24.95; a “Pope Francis Holy Bear” for $11.95; a pair of “Team Pope Boxer Shorts” for $12.95; and on and on and on.

This is similar to the religious junk sold in almost all Protestant, even Baptist, bookstores that sell nail clips with “I Love Jesus”; “Hand and Body Cream” with Scripture verse; hand soap with “God Bless Our Home”; a whole food Bible Bar; Bobble Heads of Mary and Jesus; a glass ash tray with a “picture” of Jesus; pens, jewelry, etc. ad nauseam. But all promote cheap Christianity. And I am not referring to the price.

I suppose in this day of materialism the above is to be expected; however, there are limits–lines many Catholics will not cross. If the Church pitches an all-natural breakfast “Pope-tart” then many Catholics will dispose of their rosaries  quicker than long underwear in a Texas heatwave.

At the Pope’s first meeting with the international press he said, “How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor.” Well, he can take care of that. He has had much to say about the poor (whom Christ said would always be with us) and the disadvantaged; however, I will believe Francis is really concerned with the poor when he announces, advertises, and accomplishes a massive yard sale of the Vatican’s vast assets in St. Peter’s Square–with the proceeds going to poor Catholics.

According to the International Business Times, Francis is raffling off his espresso machine, wallets, a panama hat and other personal items with the proceeds going to the poor. Posters are all over the Vatican announcing this gambling venture that will aid the poor. Nice gesture but it is just that, a gesture. Now he should get serious and sell off the priceless works of art, jewels, books, etc. After all, the Roman Catholic Church is the richest institution on earth. That’s far from its alleged founder who didn’t have a place to lay His head.

Francis quoted the great Fourth Century preacher John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople who died in 407: “Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs.” Well, if it’s theirs then give it back. After raising maybe a trillion dollars in the world’s biggest and richest yard sale Francis could pass the proceeds to the poor in various nations depending on the percentage of Roman Catholics in those nations.

The Apostle Peter, allegedly the first pope, although there is no historical evidence that he was ever in Rome, didn’t only talk about the poor, he did something about it. In Acts 3:6, he was asked by a poor, lame man for some money and Peter replied, “Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have, give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.” And he did! Pope Francis can’t say “Silver and gold have I none” because he sits on unknown wealth in the Vatican. Neither can he say, “Rise up and walk.” He has great possessions but no godly power.

St. Peter’s Square is an ideal place for a yard sale with plenty of room for two million books; 80,000 valuable hand-written manuscripts; paintings by Raphael; statuary and works by Leonardo de Vinci; artwork of Michelangelo with tools used in work on the Sistine Chapel; embroidered silk vestments, religious relics and a touchable cast of Pope John Paul II’s hand. Wow, a touchable cast. Right or left hand? Additionally, there are hundreds of mosaics, frescoes, and bone fragments of Peter and Paul. But then only a fool or fanatic would put any credibility in bone fragments. But many would and the price tag would be enormous. How many people can boast, “I own some of Peter’s bone fragments”?

The “Holy Towel of Jesus” on which Christ wiped His face, and bears His image is kept in the Pope’s private chapel and could demand a huge price from one of the faithful buyers. Many other relics of inestimable value would sell “like hotcakes.” Also there is a thorn from His crown of thorns, milk from the Virgin Mary, and an object that at one time contained Christ’s umbilical cord! Not the cord itself but the object that the cord was in at one time! Of course, there are some splinters from His cross although there are enough pieces of the “original” cross upon which Christ died to build a modern house! Hyperbole perhaps, but only slight.

The Church also has some “filings” from the chains of Peter that they permit the hoi polloi to see at times that would bring a huge sum. But since Peter was not in Rome either as pastor or prisoner, where did the “filings” come from? Just wondering.

It seemed when European Roman Catholic Churches got short of funds during later Middle Ages, they “discovered” more relics to dazzle, deceive, and draw the naïve. And such actions always filled the offering plate just as the sale of indulgences built St. Peter’s starting in 1506 and completed in 1626. The Pope’s very public avarice in the sale of indulgences to simple-minded peasants, who were promised perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next, precipitated the Reformation. Future Popes refused to learn from their sorry, sinful, and sordid history and continued to sell indulgences to get people out of purgatory.

In my opinion, the Pope should stop selling indulgences and start selling the Church’s opulent holdings, including all the relics. Indulgences are toxic according to history. Francis should keep in mind that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. When does the yard sale begin?

I haven’t been to Rome in a while but I’ll be one of his customers. Maybe I can afford to purchase a splinter from the “true” cross!

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!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe we need state run homes for such pitiful folk!