Select Page

Author: Don Boys Ph.D

Pope Francis Uniting Roman Catholics and Muslims Forming World Church?

There are about 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, and faith groups in the world, and Pope Francis is trying to get everyone together; however, each group makes its own pitch for their “way.” Obviously, Francis has to convince everyone to consider their own teaching as non-essential in order to merge with the other groups that are in error. To leftists, unity is far more important than truth.

The Pope is trying to unite the predominant religions in the world— Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism totaling over 5 billion people.  He also wants to include pagan followers, and all those who worship Satan, snakes, snails, and the sun.  At a religious conflab consisting of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists, he warned against “the temptation to fundamentalism” or the tendency for each group to be true to their foundational truths.

The main reason the world is in a religious mess today is that the early churches strayed from their fundamental roots: Christ died and rose for our personal salvation according to the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God; the world is lost, needing to hear the saving message; Christians are commissioned to tell the Good News to the world; Christians are commanded to love everyone (but not forsaking truth), live godly lives, and stand for truth even at the cost of our lives.

The early Christians, for the most part, got away from their original teachings, and the religious world has become a vicious snake pit. Francis thinks he is doing God’s work in bringing everyone together; however, the Pope has no heavenly mandate to accomplish this gargantuan task. He does have religious gravitas that goes with his position, but it will take supernatural help to get the job done. His help is not coming from above but from below!

The Pope has enormous influence, but he is not recognized as the leader of all Christians; not even all Roman Catholics recognize him. Only the weakest Protestants recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world; of course, Jews don’t recognize the Pope as the religious leader, nor do they recognize Christ as Messiah; Islam recognizes their ayatollahs as leaders, not the Pope nor does Islam recognize the Bible as the actual Word of God. And Baptists don’t recognize anyone except their local pastor, and they seem to have a tacit understanding not to recognize each other at a Hooters eatery known for scantily clad waitresses.

What a religious mess!

But Pope Francis is trying to untangle the mess—he will unite everyone, starting with Catholics and Muslims. Of course, he is so uninformed that he doesn’t know he is being used as a tool to accomplish one of the major endeavors of the final days—a world church.

As always, we Baptists refuse to go along, although some liberal Baptists will cooperate with anything if it sounds intellectual, humane, and progressive.

The possibility that Muslims and Roman Catholics would ever unite is literally breathtaking. It seems impossible since both groups claim to be the exclusive path to Heaven. Of course, I never thought the Soviet Union would fall; the Berlin Wall would come down; Jim Hoffa would be found; or Biden would be sitting in the Oval Office, so what do I know?

Muslims have had Rome (Catholic Church) in their sights for hundreds of years, especially after the many Crusades starting in 1098 and lasting intermittently into the early 1200s. European “Christians” led by various popes felt compelled to take Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims who conquered it in 638 A.D. However, the crusades ended when western “Christians” attacked eastern “Christians” by sacking Constantinople in 1204.

There were crusaders with various, dubious, and complex motives for going on a crusade. Some wanted adventure; others wanted to take advantage of the Pope’s offer to get out of debt; some wanted forgiveness of their sins as the Pope promised (but then, no Pope has the authority to forgive sins since only God can do that); some wanted to get away from family responsibilities; many were looking to get rich. Some, no doubt, were genuine Christians led astray by snake oil religious salesmen in clerical collars.

Whatever, Muslims have been peeved since the last crusader staggered back home to France after failing to find his dream—but a vivid nightmare. Muslims want their pound of flesh taken from the gut of Roman Catholicism. They want their flag hoisted over the Vatican.

Imam Mundhir Abdallah, of the Masjid Al-Faruq mosque in Copenhagen, told his followers, “the final solution to the problem of the Levant – after the establishment of the Caliphate and the elimination of the Jewish entity – will be through the conquest of Europe.”

Yunis Al Astal, a popular cleric for Hamas and a scholar on Islamic law, stated, “Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesied by our prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs [Jews] in Palestine, in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.”

Contrary to what those soft-on-Islam politicians say, Islam has plans: first Rome, then the world. Only fools, fanatics, and facilitators want to unite with others.

Francis had better be careful lest he fails to converge with Islam and is actually conquered by them. If he is not prudent (and he has no record of prudence), he will be snookered by the wily Muslims.

Pope Francis is the most criticized, questioned, and hated pope in my lifetime. He has made some really dumb statements. And many Catholics will agree with me. Disenchantment, disagreement, and dismay with Francis is manifold, not simply relating to Islam. But uniting with Islam would be the most profound action in the 1500 years of the church’s existence.

When Francis went to Morocco, Vatican officials abandoned the traditional papal insignia and replaced it with the cross and the crescent—the longtime symbol of Islam. Furthermore, the crescent did not appear “alongside the cross, as if a companion to it. Rather, the Islamic symbol encircles the Christian one,” symbolizing a kind of submission to Islam.

Pope Francis has accurately been hailed the “defender of Islam,” As Robert Spencer rightly notes: The Vatican sent a special message to all the world’s Muslims, wishing them “a peaceful and fruitful celebration of Ramadan,” according to  Breitbart, May 10, 2019. The Vatican’s message, titled “Christians and Muslims: Promoting Universal Fraternity” said, this was a “month for strengthening the spiritual bonds we share in Muslim-Christian friendship.”

The Catholic message offered much more than a fig leaf suggestion but declared Muslims and Catholics were part of the same spiritual family! “We Muslims and Christians are called to open ourselves to others, knowing and recognizing them as brothers and sisters,” the text states. “In this way, we can tear down walls raised out of fear and ignorance and seek together to build bridges of friendship that are fundamental for the good of all humanity.”

That same declaration brought down heavy criticism on the pope, particularly due to the assertion that the plurality and diversity of religions “are willed by God in His wisdom,” just as God wills a plurality of colors, sexes, races, and languages. Francis is saying God approves of the weird religions in pagan nations! But then, if Francis can convince his cardinals that the Catholic Church is not the only way to Heaven as they have taught and demanded for hundreds of years, then a case can be made for uniting Catholics and Islam—Chrislam.

However, Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana, Kazakhstan totally disagreed with the Pope, saying, “Christianity is the only God-willed religion,” he says. “Therefore, it can never be placed complementarily side by side with other religions.” He explained, “There is only one way to God, and this is Jesus Christ, for He Himself said: ‘I am the Way’ (John 14: 6). There is only one truth, and this is Jesus Christ, for He Himself said: ‘I am the Truth’ (John 14: 6). There is only one true supernatural life of the soul, and this is Jesus Christ, for He Himself said: ‘I am the Life’ (John 14: 6).”

That is one Catholic I agree with in the matter of Christ being our All in All. The church, while important, is not essential to personal salvation.

Make no mistake, this religious amalgamation is one of the most significant attempts in human history! Astute and informed Christians have always known the church would apostatize and plunge headlong into a world religious system that would characterize the end times. We are watching it unfold with the Pope’s effort to unite all religions.

Not only are Bible-believing Christians stunned at this but so are informed and committed Roman Catholics like Bishop Schneider above. They realize uniting all religions, especially those groups that reject Christ as God, is totally contrary to what Catholics have always believed.

It is not a punch line anymore to ask, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”

Francis said, “Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!” Such a statement would gag a maggot and nauseate a whole flock of buzzards. The Roman Church tortured and killed fifty million non-Catholics who disagreed with their unbiblical doctrine between 606 A.D. and the middle of the 19th century. It is interesting that some Catholics now declare that the Inquisition never happened!

The late Cardinal Georges Cottier declared, “The Inquisition per se did not exist.” Cottier must have been a member in good standing of the Flat Earth Society until his recent death. He knows better now.

Pope Francis told Christian high school students they should respect people of other faiths and not attempt to convert them to Christianity, insisting, “we are not living in the times of the crusades.” Asked by one of the students how a Christian should treat people of other faiths or no faith, the pope said, “we are all the same, all children of God,” and that true disciples of Jesus do not proselytize.

Well, the vast number of Church critics in the Middle Ages did not believe that message, nor did the Roman Catholic clerics who tortured, skinned, and killed my theological ancestors in the public squares.

In the year he was chosen to replace Benedict, Francis said that the “key for the church is to welcome, not exclude.” However, no sane, informed Catholic expected the Church to accept Muslims and their heretical doctrine as co-equal with Catholics.

Chrislam is constantly working, often behind the scenes, to unite two world religions: Catholicism and Islam. Even Baptist preacher Rick Warren said, “Pope Francis is doing everything right.” Well, Rick has himself made many overtures toward Muslim leaders. It appears that we are all expected to disregard the truth of the ages and sit around holding hands with unbelievers over hot chocolate and brownies while an international choir sings a little off-key, Kumbaya.

Kumbaya, asking “God” to “come by here” and right all wrongs, make every day bright, put everyone on the same level, and wipe away all tears. And the icing on the cake would be to remove everyone who thinks for himself and is committed to truth wherever it leads.

The World Church is being formed as I write but God is not going to “come by here” since it is a satanic, not a scriptural plan. Frankly, merging all the weird religions may sound utopian but the reality is it will be as awkward, strained, unreal, useless, and bizarre as a three-legged horse at the Kentucky Derby.

Then, it will be co-opted by the Man the unbelieving world has been waiting for and the long-awaited world church will be accepted by everyone—or else.

I won’t be here to see that.

(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 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at for $4.99. Other titles at Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Read More

Shocking, Shameful, And Salacious Dress Is Offensive To Decent People!

Some females are without shame and have no sense of Christian propriety, common decency, and biblical principles.

Sharon Hodde Miller, a doctoral student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, said, “A woman’s breasts and buttocks and thighs all proclaim the glory of the Lord.” Yes, we are fearfully and wonderfully made but God did not expect this “glory of the Lord” to be observed by everyone everywhere, especially in church.

She said, “Modesty is an orientation of the heart, first and foremost. It begins with putting God first.”  In that, she is correct; however, if God is first in one’s life, he or she will seek to do all to the glory of God.  A woman is very unchristian if she uses her bouncing breasts, swaying buttocks, or exposed flesh to influence any man other than her husband. It is also a blasphemous use of the female body.

Nutty, shameless feminists in Fort Collins, Colorado, have contended that male and female breasts are identical!  Women brandished their bare bouncing breasts along with signs proclaiming, “My breasts are no more sexual than my mouth or my hands,” “Honk for gender equality,” and “Free the NIP.”

This is not your father’s world!

My deceased philosopher father, with a sixth-grade education, would say, “This world is nuttier than a fruitcake.”  And he would have found it incredible that professing Christians would defend immodest dress.

Some Evangelical and Fundamentalist youth wear shirts declaring “Modest is Hottest” or the reverse, although I can’t imagine Christians wearing something like that.  Whatever one’s definition of “hottest,” it obviously has a sexual connotation.  Why send the wrong message to others?  I wonder what parents are doing in the parenting department.

Are Christians to be “hot”?  That kind of sexual suggestion is not conducive to the body being the Temple of the Holy Spirit.  However, non-thinkers tell us never to correct our children since it might stunt their development, and they might even throw a hissy.  Can’t have that.  They also may think they are unloved.

Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ.  In Matthew 23:5, Christ rebuked the scribes and Pharisees saying, “But all their works they do for to be seen of men…and enlarge their borders.”  Enlarge borders refers to Jews who wore fringes on their robes as commanded in Numbers 15:38-39 to remind them to keep the Commandments.  However, some Jews went beyond God’s command and enlarged the borders to draw attention to themselves.  Likewise, people dress outrageously and do strange things to their bodies to attract attention to themselves.

I have often wondered why a beautiful young woman would put metal in her face. For sure, while it will attract people’s attention, it is not attractive. Principled people should know why they believe and practice certain things and not make decisions without reasonable thought.

Paul’s command in Philippians 2:5 to have the mind of Christ will eliminate seductive clothing, inappropriate clothing, piercings, tattoos, expensive jewelry, green hair, Mohawk haircuts, and pants drooping below the 38th parallel.  Christians are not to draw attention to self but to Christ. Believers were called Christians in Antioch because they reminded people of Christ.  Many modern Christians remind me of circus performers.  Shocking, shameful, and salacious dress (or activity) should be unacceptable to decent people.

A Texas public school district announced that any tattoos must be covered, and only ear piercings would be accepted!  Are any churches teaching such honorable standards to their members?  Of course, visitors should be welcomed whatever they wear as long as it meets a minimum standard of decency.

Church of God in Christ is a formal Pentecostal denomination where ushers wear white gloves, and their denominational handbook says, “dressing in a sensually provocative manner produces inclinations to evil desires.”

I agree with this Church of God in Christ statement, although I am not a Pentecostal.
Even Catholic churches are battling this problem of undress. I saw this scores of times on my tours to the Middle East, especially in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth. Tourists are asked to be modest when visiting famous historical and biblical church sites.

Often, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are very careless, even indecent, in what they wear to church.  However, I contend that the concern should not only be on Sunday, but everyday indecent dress in public is always unacceptable, ungodly, and unnecessary.

Modesty should be a byproduct of genuine Christianity, although critics confuse modesty with prudery.  Prudery is as abnormal as exhibitionism is at the other extreme.  Modesty is Christian, common, and commendable.  Modest people have respect for their bodies (made in the image of God), respect for social norms, and respect for other people.

Both genders should consider proper dress as a sign of elegance, education, and erudition.  A silent statement is made by immodestly dressed people, male and female: “I don’t think much of myself, and I don’t expect you to value or respect me either.”

In many churches on Sunday morning, it is almost a Sunday Morning Slutwalk with bouncing boobs, cavernous cleavage, gyrating hips, skintight pants (male and female), and skirts slit front, back, and both sides.  It seems tempting, tantalizing, and taunting are parts of some modern women’s arsenal.

Feminists and others seek to remove all responsibility from women for the reactions they get from men because of seductive clothing, while most lusting men put the responsibility for their temptation totally upon the women!  However, smearing honey all over yourself and then strolling through bear country does invite attack by bears!

If the way women dress is not an invitation to men, then why do prostitutes dress the way they do? A good woman will dress to be modest and attractive, instead of modern and alluring. Street walking prostitutes feel a need to dress in salacious clothing to compete with other women.

Exposing the female body and doing the “come on” bit will also attract predator men. Immodest girls are like pigs rolling around in the mud and shouldn’t be surprised when men treat them like pigs.

Many women refuse to admit that their clothing sends a message to others. If they dress like a harlot, they will be perceived as a harlot even when it is not true. Proverbs 7:10 makes clear that dress is associated with prostitution: “And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.”

All women who dress provocatively are not trying to attract men; some are simply careless, thoughtless, or trying to be relevant. However, it is wrong, and their husbands should remind them of the danger of advertising without trying to do so. Proverbs 11:22 says, “As a jewel of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion.” Principled women will seek to be appropriate, wise, and thoughtful of how they are perceived.

It is normal for men to react to exposed breasts and other parts of the female body.  That is the way God made them.  It would be abnormal if they did not react to the exposed female body.  However, men are responsible for their own impure, illegal, and iniquitous thoughts and actions.  Moreover, mere attraction is not lust, but it often leads to lust.

Normal men like to see female skin, but how much skin is permitted?  Some Muslim women are forced to cover their entire bodies except the eyes and hands; others even hide their eyes!  That would be considered going far past modesty to prudery.

The absence of modesty among females is an egregious problem, but I must emphatically state that however wickedly women dress, it does not justify lecherous men’s abusive actions.  While lust is natural, it is naturally sinful.  It dehumanizes the female when a man takes her for himself (even mentally), often to prove superiority over her as well as to satisfy unpermitted personal cravings.

Decent people should ask themselves not only what is acceptable but also what is appropriate for each occasion.  It is a joy to meet a person with a happy smile, pure heart, and noble intentions who is modest, kind, humble, and genuine.  Not many out there!

I’ll be considered naïve and self-righteous for even suggesting they should be out there!

Young boys used to look at National Geographic for naked bodies, strange piercings, and tattoos. In this day, it is easy to see about anything everywhere, even observing leading members of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist churches.

(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 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at for $4.99. Other titles at Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Read More

Go Into Politics To Do Good And End Up Doing Very Well—As Did Hunter Biden And His Dad!

A new film has been released dealing with Hunter Biden’s misadventures in parts of the world where he and his father-president almost broke their backs carrying away baskets-full of cash. Newsweek reported that the film made “accusations of criminal activity against Hunter and Joe Biden, sex, drug misuse, scandal, exploitation and murder.”

In 2019, Biden was worth 1.5 million dollars, and today is worth 9 million. After he left the office of Vice President in January 2017, he earned “more than $15 million in a little more than two years! Much of it was from speeches that paid him $200,000 per speech. Come now, simple ones, who would even suggest that Biden could say anything worth $20? Now that he is President, his speeches will be worth even more. Well, they won’t be worth more money, but he will be paid more. Big difference.

Biden’s son Hunter has done very well in business because of his association with a China bank while his dad was vice president. Plus, the Daily Mail reported that Hunter “was paid $83,333 a month by Ukrainian gas company to be a ‘ceremonial figure,’” and Hunter’s firm was paid a total of $3.4 million! Also, the daughters of Clinton and Bush greatly benefited from their family association.

The younger Biden will be fortunate if he does not spend time in the hoosegow. And Dad will be fortunate if he is not impeached next year.

The New York Post reported that five members of Joe’s family also got rich because of connections with Joe. Astonishingly, Hunter was paid $3.5 million via wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow. No one knows what Hunter did to deserve the money. I wonder if the IRS has asked him about the money.

One of the most unsavory politicians today is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Her wealth has increased from $41 million to nearly $115 million since 2004! Wow, she must really know the stock market or has a fantastic financial advisor. Her five most-traded stocks in the last two years were Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google—all top stocks. However, those stocks were all affected by pending legislation under her control.

Surely, she would not use her position to enhance her personal wealth since that’s devious, dishonest, and downright dumb. It’s called a conflict of interest. Do you think Nancy would support a bill prohibiting any elected official from dealing in the stock market while in office?

America has been portrayed as the land of milk and honey, but most politicians know it is the land of milk and money. And they care little for the milk but have an insatiable taste for money.

Thus, an honest politician appears on the scene as often as a chaste prostitute does. Proof of that statement is seen in former U.S. Presidents getting rich after they leave office. Sometimes it is blatant fraud, and other times, it is less obvious, like a politician who uses his influence and contacts to promote his books, business, or boondoggle. And ends up getting filthy rich when out of office.

Most politicians seem to have resolved to do as little work as possible while in office but carry away as much cash as they can. America has the best politicians that money can buy, reminiscent of H. L. Mencken’s quip, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I have the consolation, too, of having added nothing to my private fortune during my public service, and of retiring with hands as clean as they are empty.”

Obviously, Jefferson was in the minority.

The media revealed that former President Obama (I love to write that!) purchased a home in Martha’s Vineyard worth $15 million, proving once again that public service pays big. Their net worth is now $70 million.

Many politicians disprove the adage, “Crime does not pay,” since going into public service to do good, they end up doing very well.

As a Christian Conservative, I firmly believe in free enterprise, personal initiative, and capital accumulation—as long as everything is honest and high principles are practiced. It is one thing to write an informative book that is in demand and another to accept a directorship on a board of a company of which the former president or relative has no knowledge. He is selling his name and accrued prestige without providing any other value to the business. However, the norm seems to be for politicians to “do public service” for a few years and then trade on that service to make big bucks by taking seats on various Boards of Directors, becoming lobbyists, signing book contracts, etc. Especially etc.

Ben Franklin, while in Europe in 1777, wrote to a friend about public service in America declaring, “In America, salaries, where indispensable, are extremely low, but much of public business is done gratis. The honor of serving the public ably and faithfully is deemed sufficient. Public spirit really exists there, and has great effects. In England it is universally deemed a nonentity, and whoever pretends to it is laughed at as a fool, or suspected as a knave.”

At the Constitutional Convention, the men came at a sacrifice; Madison was there using borrowed funds. Such sacrificial acts are unknown today.

Gerald Ford was a very lackluster U.S. President, yet he showed an impressive ability to make over a million dollars within a year of leaving the White House. His worth at death was $7 million.

Even Richard Nixon managed to turn a fiasco into financial success. Without a wealthy family or business to support him, he left $15 million to his wife. While he refused to follow the lucrative speech-making circuit, he wrote seven successful books and invested in California real estate.

Jimmy Carter “was broke” when he left the White House. Still, with a few book deals, his million-dollar Nobel Peace Prize, and his professorship at Emory University, he parlayed his holdings to $7 million.

Ronald Reagan, a B movie star, was financially comfortable when elected President but increased his wealth when leaving office. He received $2 million for two weeks of speeches in Japan, causing much criticism from the media. Even some principled conservatives were discouraged, distressed, and disgusted by that caper. When he died, he and Nancy were worth $38 million.

Bill Clinton admitted, “I’ve never had any money until I got out of the White House, but I’ve done reasonably well since then.” Well, that’s an understatement. After driving away from the White House, he began making speeches for up to $500,000 a pop. Does anyone, including Democrat fanatics, think any Clinton speech is worth that? How about $50? He and Hillary have made more than $230 million since leaving the White House.
Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, is worth about $15 million. She raked in $9 million while serving on a corporate board from 2011.  One of Bush’s daughters is worth $4 million.

Come on now, friend. No one believes those lightweights could have done that if they were Smith and Jones.

Forbes revealed that Obama came to Washington in 2005, making $85,000 per year as a college professor, and has made $20 million since arriving in Washington. He signed a $65 million book deal and is paid $400,000 per speech. Public service pays off in a big way, and his net worth is now $70 million.

George W. Bush put his holdings in a trust in 2000 and had no idea of their worth, not having any ability to influence the trust officials who made all investment decisions. Bush earned $7 million for the first 1.5 million copies of Decision Points.

Forbes reported that Trump was worth 4.5 billion before his election, and as of September of 2021, his worth was down to $3.5 billion. So, Trump is the only President whose worth has decreased. Yet, his enemies accuse him of using his office to advance himself financially—even though he gave his presidential salary to charities!

Harry Truman wrote, “I have a very strong feeling about any man who has the honor of being an occupant of the White House in the greatest job in the history of the world, who would exploit that situation in any way, shape or form.”

I agree with Harry.

Truman rejected many lucrative six-figure endorsement deals, consulting fees, and other offers that inundated him in 1953 until he moved back to Missouri after leaving office. He was paid $100,000 per year as President and received no retirement! He lived off his $112.56 monthly pension from his service in the Army Reserve and whatever he saved from his salary while in office.

It seems most of our members of Congress and presidents have sold their names—and their honor. But then, they wore a symbolic sign around their neck at their election party: “I’m for sale to the highest bidder—make me an offer.” They professed they went into “public service” to do good, but they ended up doing well—very well.

Dr. Don Boys is a former Indiana House of Representatives member who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years. Boys authored 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at for $4.99. Other titles at Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.” – John Bunyan. Baptist preacher

Read More

The Royal Family Has One Scandal After Another—Time to Shut it Down?

King Charles of the United Kingdom made the decision to be known as Charles III, and I hope he remembers that Charles I was beheaded in 1649, the only British sovereign to be executed. Charles I was a tyrant who believed in “the divine right of kings,” meaning to oppose him was to oppose God. The English Parliament did not see it that way, and a bloody civil war began ending with the beheading of Charles.

Charles III will not suffer such a demeaning and disastrous fate, but his reign will be a debacle for Britain.

After Queen Elizabeth died, the Royal Beekeeper made his way to the royal bee farms on the grounds of Clarence House and Buckingham Palace and carried out a ceremony many centuries old: informing the royal bees that the Queen had passed away. I am sure the bees were stung by the shocking news. This ancient custom is “telling the bees” about any major news in the Royal Family and must be done in a “hushed tone.”

That silly custom is almost as useless as the monarchy itself, in my humble opinion. One study revealed that only 46 percent of Brits prefer to keep the monarchy. Many Brits are saying it is time to ditch the crown. After all, being born into the Royal Family is no qualification for ruling. Besides, who today will try to defend a class-based society?

Ditching the monarchy would save Brits $102 million each year. It would also keep them from having to apologize for their royals’ haughty and naughty behavior. More precisely, their sleazy and slutty behavior.

In full disclosure, I have never been impressed with royalty. I cringe at the thought of bowing to any human. In fact, I will not do so. While writing this, I remember being in an old African village where the only way to enter the chief’s throne room was to bow while walking through a very low door. I refused to enter. If I bow, it will be my choice, not forced on me. As a free American, I bow to no man. I cringe when I see Brits kissing the hand of Charles. I would not kiss any part of Charles or any other human in recognition of their special place. Most royals are pompous, pampered, privileged dolts.

So, I am anti-monarchical from the get-go. Keep that in mind as you read the soap opera known as British Royalty.

In 2016, the Spectator called on Prince Charles to renounce his place in the line of succession before the 90-year-old Queen died. Others had suggested, some rather strongly, it was time to put the Royal Family aside and continue to lurch into the future as a declining, once-great nation. After all, the Royal Family has received numerous gut punches from scandal after scandal after scandal. And scandal.

Only referring to a few past scandals:

King Edward VIII rejected the crown in 1936, so he could marry a divorced American woman, moved to Paris, and supported Hitler, all resulting in shock waves around the world for many years. He was a fornicator preferring married women.

Princess Margaret’s affair with Captain Peter Townsend ended with Townsend divorcing his wife and Margaret calling off the marriage in 1955.

Princess Anne, the only daughter of Elizabeth II, married Mark Phillips in 1973, and in 1989, a British newspaper revealed her affair with British naval officer Timothy Laurence. In 1992, she divorced Phillips and married Laurence.

Elizabeth’s son Prince Andrew married Sarah Ferguson in 1986, but six years later, she was caught vacationing with American John Bryan. There were incriminating photos, one of him licking Fergie’s foot. Andrew was not a happy camper, and they were divorced in 1996 as he went on to teenage conquests yet to be resolved in court.

The Daily Record and other media reported on Prince Andrew’s involvement in a “sex-slave” scandal. There were accusations that Andy had been involved in an orgy with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and at least eight teenage girls. Andrew was considered best friends with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Rather than deal with the charges, Andy was sent to bed without his supper. The charges are still pending, and Andy (only 6% approval) could spend the rest of his life in the pokey.  

But don’t bet the farm on it because the royals are a special class.

The Sun published naked photos of Prince Harry at a Las Vegas party in 2012, proving that what happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas. Harry settled down somewhat and married an American actress, divorcée Meghan Markle who was living with a man before meeting Harry, with whom she continued her cohabitation. For those educated in public schools, that is Latin for shack up. Harry and Meghan now live in California and have caused heartburn to the Royals by their tell-all interviews or, more correctly, their whining about the difficulty of royal living. Meghan reported that the Royal Family was fearful that her children would be black since she is a mulatto. But that didn’t seem to hinder Obama who is also half white.

Prince William and Kate seem to be an ideal couple, but like most couples, they started living together before their marriage. The Archbishop of York endorsed Prince William and Kate’s decision to live together before marriage, saying that many modern couples want to “test the milk before they buy the cow.” However, he did not consult my longtime Friend (whom the archbishop pretends to represent) before giving that advice. I don’t think Kate appreciated being compared to a cow.

Conversations (rumors) have circulated for a few years that all is not well at home. The Daily Mail reported that William “has always had a roving eye,” and a reporter for The Times posted, then deleted, a tweet by royal reporter Giles Coren, “I know about the affair, everyone knows about the affair.” He referred to William’s affair with a friend and neighbor.

The future king denied the affair with Rose Hanbury, a neighbor and longtime friend of Kate. During Kate’s third pregnancy, William allegedly found “companionship” with his female friend and neighbor. Rose’s husband is 23 years her senior, and he travels often. When confronted by Kate, William was told to stop associating not only with Rose but also with her husband, who was William’s longtime friend.  The two couples had double-dated in their university years.

I hope they survive the crowning, clawing, and crowing of royal life, but immorality is common everywhere, especially in privileged circles. Even if the adultery is true, there is always the possibility of remorse, repentance, and reconciliation.

King Charles is not without his problems.  His longtime adultery with Camilla (now his wife and Queen Consort, whatever that is) is legendary. Princess Diana groupies often blame Charles and his longtime zipper problem for Diana’s miserable life and tragic death. (Some declared she was killed on orders of the Queen for her affair with a Muslim.) But then, Diana was a bed hopper, and even her stepmother called her a whore for dating Muslim men.

But then, adultery seems to be in the royal DNA and comes with the pomp and ceremony of a monarchy, although a Man I know, a good Friend, rejected that premise long ago and even authoritatively declared that it was adultery if a man even imagined an illicit affair in his mind.

Queen Elizabeth was at the center of a tax scandal when leaked documents revealed that she invested as much as $13.2 million in offshore tax havens. But remember, there is a difference between avoiding taxes and evading taxes.

On September 19, 2022, The Sunday Times revealed that Charles “accepted a suitcase containing $1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician.” The Times reported it “was one of three lots of cash, totaling €3 million [$3 billion], which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar.” That incident is still rattling windows all over Europe.

But that is only the most recent royal scandal.

The new king has other problems since the British police launched a criminal investigation into one of his charities—The Prince’s Foundation earlier this year. It is alleged that Charles reportedly “traded royal honors” for donations to his various charities. His Foundation, run by Michael Fawcett, is highly respected but is being investigated, according to The Sunday Times of London, for receiving about $1.5 million to Charles’s charities in exchange for British citizenship for a Saudi businessman.

Fawcett allegedly wrote to Saudi businessman Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz in 2017, indicating the Saudi businessman would get a knighthood, British citizenship, and additional private face-to-face meetings with Charles. Oh my, not even a prince or king can get away with such misuse of trust. Charles responded as expected—like the backslidden Baptist piano player in a whorehouse who swore he didn’t know what was going on upstairs.

Whatever, Charles’ Foundation got a bushel of money, and Mahfouz got “private meetings with the prince and a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace in November 2016, when Charles awarded the Saudi with an ‘honorary’ CBE.” The Saudi also had some benches, a wooded area, and gardens named for him.  CBE stands for Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. 

Charles’ aid, Fawcett, was temporarily suspended from leadership in the Foundation, and many questioned whether he would or could make such deals without Charles’ knowledge. Fawcett had been Charles’ fundraiser for 30 years, raising over £60 million! There are numerous existing photos of Charles schmoozing with foreign elites at Foundation dinners. It seems the foreign guests with more money than character apparently “paid up to £500,000 for an opulent dinner with Charles.” The British public wants to know if Charles knew his aide arranged those dinners, invited the guests, and picked up generous checks for Charles’ Foundation.

Furthermore, is influence peddling acceptable if done for charity, and is it abhorrent for average people to do so but appropriate for a King?

Fawcett began his rise to the Big Time as a humble valet in Buckingham Palace in 1982 and rose to be the constant companion to Charles. He has resigned twice before after charges of bullying and selling to the highest buyer various gifts to the Royal Family, taking a generous handler’s fee for himself. He is known as “Fawcett the Fence.” He fenced royal gifts with Charles’ knowledge, according to the Daily Mail. That sounds like some old-fashioned American sleaze.

The Sun reported that the prince never traveled without Fawcett, “who provided the luxury he demanded day and night.” There have been many charges that Fawcett did far more than was expected. There have been many accusations of a sexual relationship between the two men, but I withhold judgment on that issue since all involved are a gaggle of liars, adulterers, thieves, and arrogant scumbags.

If the past is an indication of the future, Fawcett will be admonished, Charles will be absolved, and the loudest critics will be attacked. And the Empire will continue to lurch into another dung pile next month.

It will be interesting if Fawcett is appointed to a high position in the reign of Charles III.
The Daily Mail reported that convicted pedophile Joseph Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell (socialite sex offender) “vacationed at the Queen’s very own Cabin.” It seems the Royals tend to be friends with the dregs of society. Why would Queen Elizabeth have any kind of relationship with such lowlifes? But then, she has been around them all her life. Lord Mountbatten (former Royal killed by the IRA) mentor to Charles, was a flaming pedophile, and Jimmy Savile had easy access to the palace and royal functions.

Jimmy Savile was a serial predator and a top entertainer in the British media, however, after his death (at age 84) in 2011, it was determined he had been a vicious pedophile abusing about 500 girls as young as 2 and as old as 75 beginning in 1963. He also admitted to sex with the dead!

Much of his stomach-churning abuse took place in hospitals where he volunteered. He was so impressive and powerful that Prince Charles, now King Charles was a friend and used him as an unofficial adviser. Even the Conservative Margaret Thatcher entertained Savile at her home and promoted his knighthood.  The unmarried Savile was an informal marriage counselor for Charles and Diana in the late 1980s! With his close association with the Royal Family, he received the OBE, and was knighted by Queen Elizabeth.

Savile was a good example of a corrupt system—the monarchy, the media, and a senile public unwilling to confront, challenge, and convict a marauding pedophile even glorified him.  Moreover, awarding high royal honors to a predator pedophile is like putting whipped cream on a putrid onion.

I don’t have a vote on the matter, but from a friend across the pond, I say, do away with the monarchy and force all the royal snobs to get a real job.

(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 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at for $4.99. Other titles at Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.)

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”  John Bunyan, Baptist Preacher

Read More

Evolutionists Are Mentally Unstable If They Believe Nothing Created Everything!

According to many significant scientists, the universe popped out of nothing with a neon sign proclaiming, “Well, here we are.” That is a little irreverent, but that is what many “experts” teach. Moreover, they are offended if you roll your eyes at that ludicrous assumption and are downright insulted if you roll on the floor, holding your sides in raucous laughter.

After all, scientists are supposed to be respected, even revered, never ridiculed.

Some of my readers, with an idealized view of science, will assume I am using ridicule and hyperbole to express my creationist views; however, that is not true. Major physicists believe nothing created everything, which is unreasonable, unbelievable, and unnatural, and it’s also unsane.

Atheist Stephen Hawking declared: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Hawking also claimed the universe “popped into existence without violating the known laws of Nature.”

Sure, Steve.

Many scientists are uncomfortable with nothing creating everything; consequently, that statement is often denied, but the facts are in: many prominent scientists believe the silly nothing-created-everything doctrine. Atheist Anthony Kenny confessed, “A proponent of [the Big Bang,] […] at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Another scientist declared, “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.”

That is not science but religion.

First, there was nothing, and it is admittedly impossible to “get something from nothing,”; but here we are, so it “is evident proof that you can!” That is the most shameful tautology ever. With such thinking, is it surprising that many scientists are analogous to snake-oil salesmen? The atheist philosopher Quinton Smith indicated that “the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” Of course, that is reasonable if you are a resident of a state institution for the demented, delusional, or disoriented.

Dr. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book supporting the nothing-to-everything theme, titling his book, A Universe from Nothing. The title means exactly what it says. The book’s afterward was written by atheist Richard Dawkins, who compares the book to Darwin’s Origin.

In The Ancestor’s Tale, Dawkins wrote, “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.” Yes, Richard, that is so outrageous that I would not attempt to put it in words. Astute readers know that by his silly statement, he is not required to prove anything! It is a sophomoric ploy to give him a place to hide.

Atheism is off the charts in human folly. By contrast, the flat-earthers, Elvis spotters, Hitler-did-not-shoot-himself, and man-has-not-been-to-the-moon skeptics are the epitome of stability.

Some famous scientists are embarrassed when their peers specialize in such “scientific” gibberish. World renowned astronomer Robert Jastrow declared, “But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science–the principle of the conservation of matter and energy–which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.”

Prominent physicist George Davis seems to agree that every effect has a cause when he writes, “No material thing can create itself. This is the basic law of science, the Law of Causality; every effect has a cause.” Even the famous skeptic David Hume did not deny that law. He declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.”

Scientists often claim that real scientists do not believe in Special Creation by a sovereign, personal God, but the kitty is out of the sack: many foremost scientists do believe that God is the answer, not “nothing.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow admitted, “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

In case that is not clear enough for atheists to understand, Jastrow admits that “there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Scientist George Smoot, who led the team of scientists who first measured ripples in the cosmic background radiation, declares, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

The physicist Gordon Van Wyden wrote in his book Thermodynamics: “The author has found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.”

It is evident that “Bible thumpers” are not the only ones convinced that nothing cannot create anything. Such teaching is not scientific; it is silly. Bible thumpers have been vindicated! [In the interest of full disclosure, I have been called a “Bible thumper,” but really, I don’t thump my Bible very much and not really hard, and seldom in public. And when I do a little Bible-thumping, it is always the King James Version.]

God haters often ridicule Christians who declare that God created everything out of nothing, and they do so with scorn and sarcasm. When I demand to know their answer as to how everything got here (after all, we are here!), they get as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes, try to fake a scholarly look, then they squirm and with less authority in their voice tell me “Nothing created everything.”

That is shabby, shabby thinking. If you have nothing, it is evident that nothing can be produced. In my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? and in one of my evolution/creation conferences, I began by saying, “When did time begin? Where did the universe come from? Who started it? Where did man come from? Why are we here? John 1:1 declares, ‘In the beginning was the Word.’ Evolutionists parody this by saying, ‘In the beginning was hydrogen.’ (As if that would solve anything. After all, where did the hydrogen come from?) Hydrogen is a colorless, tasteless, odorless gas when given billions of years, produces planets, plants, and people–even university professors.”

I further explain, “A sovereign God created everything out of nothing, but scientists believe that nothing created everything out of nothing! Or nothing became something, and something became everything! Nothing, working on nothing by nothing through nothing for nothing, created everything. Wouldn’t that require that the universe existed before it came into existence? I’m getting dizzy. Stop the world. I want to get off!”

Atheists get indignant when we reveal what they believe; then, they often deny it since no sane person will accept such nonsense. However, American physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University wrote, “Even if we don’t have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific.” No, of course not! How dare we suggest that such scientists are unscientific if not unstable! Davies also wrote it is “possible to imagine the Universe coming into being from nothing entirely spontaneously.” I think Paul stared at the stars too long, exposing himself to the moonlight.

Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews of Ashton University in England wrote, “It is now becoming clear that everything can–and probably did–come from nothing.”

Wait a minute! Are those atheists trying to convince me that nothing can produce something? But they aren’t just declaring that nothing created something but that nothing created everything. Look, I’m not an Oxford scholar, but you will have to do better than that. I wasn’t born yesterday, and Momma didn’t rear a fool, and you will have to do more than pucker your lips, wipe your sweaty palms, and tout your scholarship to convince me that nothing can do, say, think, or produce anything.

Moreover, in light of the above, evolutionists tell us a sovereign God did not create everything because it is simply outrageous!

Let’s start over again. What is nothing? Atheists don’t know, but they know it brought everything into existence! Aristotle suggested that “nothing” is what rocks dream about!
Look, Bible haters can’t flimflam me because I’ve been around. I’ve been across the state line in two directions, been to three county fairs, one state fair, attended three tractor pulls, one demolition derby, and even been to the Grand Ole Opry, where I shook hands with Minnie Pearle. I’ve been around!

So, this is one good ole boy who can’t be seduced with snake-oil salesmanship. But, back to the origin of everything when nothing did its big job. Evolutionists expect us to believe that once upon a time (as all fairytales begin), there was nothing; well, there was something. There was space, and we are to give them that graciously; I won’t. How and when did space arrive?

There was nothing, then what happened? “Well,” says the atheist, “after a few billion years, a cosmic egg about the size of the head of a pin started floating through space.” “Wait a minute, tell me about the cosmic egg. Where did it come from? He doesn’t know. Well, could it have been laid by a cosmic chicken? Well, tell me what was in that cosmic egg!” The evolutionist/atheist, with a straight face, says, “Well, everything you see around you and everything in the universe was in the head of that pin.” “Say what! Everything in the whole universe was in that pinhead? There you go trying to flimflam me again, but I can’t be flimmed or flammed.”

The scientist assures me that everything (created by nothing) was encapsulated in that pinhead–Then it exploded. I asked, “And what caused the explosion?” The atheist continues his myth by saying, “I don’t know, but it exploded, and everything went everywhere and continued to expand into this massive universe.” About this time, I’m getting a little scared and looking for the men in white coats carrying nets. It is incredible that scientists could be so misinformed, miseducated, and mistaken to believe such nonsense and be willing to declare it in books, lectures, on television, etc. Then, accepting money and perks for propagating such nonsense to others indeed displays a massive absence of character. Those scientists should be out selling insurance or driving trucks, and I don’t mean to insult truck drivers and insurance salesmen.

Atheists want us to believe that the egg exploded, producing a well-ordered universe that runs like an expensive watch! However, no honest scientist suggests that an explosion will produce anything but disorder. Yet, all planets (except Venus and Uranus) go around the Sun counterclockwise, but the Sun spins clockwise! How could an explosion produce such a contradiction? And in our solar system, everything is the necessary distance from each other to make life on Earth possible. That’s called the “anthropic principle,” whereby creation seems to have been tweaked (by whom?) to make life possible for mankind.

The above is reinforced by former Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle who argued, “A common-sense interpretation of the data suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics” to make life possible.

Nevertheless, angry atheists tell us that it is improbable, even impossible, that a self-existent, sovereign God created the universe, but it is very reasonable to believe that everything came into existence without a cause! That is pure religion, even fanatical religion, and it might constitute child abuse if taught to children.

Look, maybe we are overdoing the origination of the universe, but after all, we are here. Perhaps we should be more concerned about why we are here and where we are going than how we got here. But the fact is an obvious truth that something can do something, but nothing can do nothing.

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 20 books, the most recent, Reflections of a Lifetime Fundamentalist: No Reserves, No Retreats, No Regrets! The eBook is available at for $4.99. Other titles at Follow him on Facebook at Don  Boys, Ph.D., and visit his blog. Send a request to for a free subscription to his articles and click here to support  his work with a donation.
Featured image: Pablo Carlos Budassi, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Read More
  • 1
  • 2


Search without Big Brother Watching


Subscribe to
Treat yourself to current Conservative News and Commentary conveniently delivered all in one place, right to your computer doorstep.

Pin It on Pinterest