XPost: alt.history.abe-lincoln, alt.society.modern-life, alt.pol   
   tics.white-power   
   XPost: rec.arts.disney.merchandise   
   From: gallaxial@gallaxial.com   
      
   On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 01:30:00 +0100 (CET), Ronny Koch wrote:   
      
   > Truth to unprincipled people is like salt to a slug. It destroys   
   > them, but to honorable people it is their foundation for life.   
   > Truth is essential for developing a vibrant nation, especially   
   > necessary for politicians, preachers, professors, and performers   
   > who give direction to a nation.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)