Sunday, July 20, 2014

Liberals and "the least of these"

As America endures a massive invasion of illegal immigrants at our southern border, many liberals, whether in the media or on Capitol Hill, are attempting to claim the moral high ground in this matter and remind us that this is all about “the children.”

Slamming those protesting and blocking buses attempting to bring the illegal immigrants into their communities, CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield, full of false piety, declared “It’s devastating. And God help if you’re ever in need of help and you show up and there’s a bus telling you to get out. This is America. Just read what we’re about.” Jesse Jackson said that “getting support for those children in the humanitarian crisis is the moral and right thing to do.”

Nancy Pelosi went so far as to lecture us that “every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect – what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect.”

It is no surprise that the left in America would stoop to using children as pawns in their never-ending quest for political supremacy. When you are willing to take positions that call for the killing of the most vulnerable among us—those in the womb—are there any depths to which one wouldn’t sink?

Obama demonstrated such willingness before he got elected President. Back in 2008, after he described his daughter’s hypothetical pregnancy as a “punishment,” and several weeks prior to the election, candidate Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren what he thought was, “the greatest moral failure of America.” Obama responded with, “I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me…”

In justifying their votes for Obamacare, like-minded liberals used similar reasoning.

It is appallingly duplicitous that liberals, whether referencing the “least of us,” or calling for government action on behalf of “the children,” are never talking about the unborn. Whatever moral causes one chooses to champion, nothing compares to the helplessness of an unborn child. In other words, there is no one among us more “least” than the unborn. It is the height of hypocrisy for liberals to preach about “social justice” and reference the “least of us,” while supporting policies which have led to the slaughter of millions still in their mothers’ wombs.

Such duplicity would be enough for any reasonable God-fearing person to abandon liberalism, but sadly this hypocrisy doesn’t stop with abortion. As has been noted ad nauseam, for decades liberals have wrought havoc on the American family and traditional (biblical) American values. In other words, tens-of-millions of American children have suffered and continue to suffer terribly under the Big Government policies of liberals. As Jesse Jackson himself recently noted (see link above), Chicago, like many other American urban areas dominated by liberal politics, is a tremendously dangerous place, especially for young people, and in dire need of help.

Ironically, Jackson, his fellow race pimps, publicity prostitutes, and other like-minded liberals, have helped make black neighborhoods the most dangerous places in the U.S. (Eight of the top 25 are neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago.) Rarely do liberals look to the biggest reason for the existence of such chaos: the breakdown of the family. (Such breakdown has especially harmed black families.) Instead, they insanely continue to promote politics that directly attack the traditional (biblical) American family.

As was noted on American Thinker last year, in dozens of large cities (pop. 50,000+) all across America—from Savannah to Atlanta, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hartford, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Detroit—more than half of all families are led by single parents, with the numbers for minorities—especially blacks, being significantly higher.

Of course, most of these single parent homes are led by mothers. The absence of dad is devastating for children in a wide variety of ways. Children from single-parent homes are twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school and are more than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 85% of children with behavioral disorders don’t have a father at home.

Children living without dad are much more likely to abuse drugs, commit suicide, and run away from home. They are more likely to have lower academic achievement along with lower self-esteem. Children born to unwed mothers are about seven times more likely to live in poverty than children with fathers in the home. The correlation between fatherless homes and the negative effects on the family is irrefutable.

Of course, similar irrefutable conclusions with motherless homes can be drawn as well. Thus, despite a recent bogus attempt at painting same-sex parenting as normal and healthy for children, most studies show what common sense and sound morality already reveal: children are always best served by a loving and married mother and father in the home.

What’s more, as has been noted before, the same-sex marriage movement is nothing more than a means to an end: the full-on legitimization of homosexuality. With full legal protection, homosexuality, in all of its forms and in spite of its extreme dangers, is being promoted as normal and healthy. Of course, school children are targets.

In addition to destroying the biblical family model, another favorite cause of liberals, man-made global warming, which, of course requires Big Government solutions, also set its sights on children. Since 1970, when the “Earth Day” nonsense began, American school children have been targets as well as pawns (“Save the planet—for the children!”).

For decades now, liberals have shamelessly used children, as well as other vulnerable citizens, to further their Big Government agenda. At the same time, supporting and/or promoting everything from the welfare state, to same-sex marriage, homosexuality, homosexual adoption, transgenderism, pornography, abortion, global warming, and so on, liberals have waged continuous war on the biblical family and biblical values. Of course, “the least” of us, “the children,” suffer the most. Remember this the next time a Democrat and their lackeys in the media want to take action “for the children.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Our Financial Story on Life Focus TV

Nearly three years ago, our family was asked to participate in a television production telling our story of debt-free living. I took the day off from teaching mathematics, and a film crew from Life Focus TV came to our home and spent most of the day with us. It was a neat experience, and we looked forward to the finished product. We had no good idea of the time frame for actual airing, and over two years later with no sign of the show, and after we started our book, we pretty much forgot about the episode.

A bit to our surprise, a friend of Michelle's contacted us today and said that she saw us on TV! It seems that the episode, "Dealing With Debt," has been out for a few months. Life Focus TV airs on a variety of Christian networks, including TBN and the Miracle Channel, as well as on PBS. Right now it seems that "Dealing With Debt" is not yet available to embed. Go here to watch it in its entirety. (We do not make a significant appearance until about 9 minutes in.)

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Liberal Lies Follow the Hobby Lobby Ruling

After the ridiculously close Hobby Lobby ruling came down Monday morning, the left went into its predictable hyperventilations. Also predictable, especially among those whose morality is driven by politics and opinion polls, was the frequent—seemingly coordinated—deceit emanating from the abortion apologists.

Along with the “war on women” nonsense that continues to be parroted by liberals, we also got to hear again about how “corporations are not people” (for the left, corporations are only people when it’s tax time), and how companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood want to “impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”

Liberals typically use religion like they do corporations (and most other things, for that matter): only when it is politically convenient or profitable. Whenever conservatives use their morality as a basis for making business decisions or passing legislation, liberals, seemingly unaware of their hypocrisy, love to note how conservatives are “forcing their religion” or “forcing their morality” on others.

When liberals talk in terms of the “evils” of corporations and the “one-percent,” or the “rights” of women (or men) to have all the sex they want without any of the consequences, or how “wrong” it is to deny homosexuals the privilege of “marrying,” they are also making moral and religious arguments. Of course, when one’s “morals” allow for the killing of children in the womb, marriage perversions, and the like, it is rather easy to deceive others into thinking that your arguments are rooted not in some perverse morality but in “science” and “reason.”

Another common lie that made the rounds after the Hobby Lobby ruling was that the four birth-control devices opposed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood don’t really cause abortions. Sally Kohn of the Daily Beast said that such devices are “mis-label[ed] and malign[ed]” by those on the right as abortifacients. She adds “That characterization is factually, scientifically untrue.”

Similarly, Robin Abcarian of the L.A. Times said that to conclude the two IUDs and two morning-after pills objected to in this case cause an abortion was “wildly at odds with the scientific consensus that a pregnancy begins at implantation.” Most people have probably never considered what the definition of pregnancy is, but for liberals seeking to avoid having their “contraception” labeled as abortion-inducing, this has become important.

As Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell pointed out several years ago, “Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 27th edition, copyright 2000, offered a bandage for the conscience of the general medical community and the society they serve: it redefined conception. Once upon a time, conception was synonymous with fertilization; in the new millennium, conception became synonymous with implantation, which typically occurs 6-9 days later. Stedman’s semantic alteration, like an earlier change by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, reflected not medical science but sociological and political correctness.”

One New Zealand pro-life organization points out that, “In normal situations, pregnancy begins at fertilisation, not at implantation…It is interesting to note that a ‘wanted’ pregnancy is counted from the first day of a woman's last period. This means that at conception, the foetus is already considered to be two weeks old.”

Some liberals argue that the “contraceptives” objected to by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood prevent fertilization, and thus could never cause an abortion. Even Jay Bookman, liberal columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution didn’t bother with this argument as he noted that, “The contraceptives in question are two types of morning-after pills and two types of IUDs, all of which work by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to a uterus.”

Obviously Bookman didn’t get the latest liberal talking points on contraception and the definition of pregnancy. While it is true that the devices in question sometimes prevent fertilization, in early 2013, Dr. James Trussell, Director of Princeton’s Office of Population Research and one of the world’s leading authorities on the morning-after pill, concluded that “To make an informed choice, women must know that [emergency contraceptive pills] … prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation and inhibiting fertilization, but may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.”

Of course, as with every type of contraception, a woman can become pregnant with an IUD. If this occurs, according to WebMD, “your doctor will recommend that the IUD be removed. This is because the IUD can cause miscarriage or preterm birth.”

So again we see that, in order to satisfy the libidos of liberals and deceive as many as possible, the leftist talking-heads play games with words—just as they have with “global warming,” “illegal immigrants,” and the “Redskins.” (At least we are no longer debating the definition of “is.”) Likewise, to continue to perpetuate the “war on women” lie, liberals must pretend that all women, and all supporters of women—which, with a wife, daughter, mother, mother-in-law, and sister, includes me—buy into their perverted view of what it means to be a woman.

After the ruling, Abcarian declared that, “women lost.” On Monday, Cecil Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said that, “Today the Supreme Court ruled against American women and families, giving bosses the right to discriminate against women...”

Not only do such statements ignore the views of tens-of-millions of Americans, but obviously Abcarian, Richards, and the like refuse to acknowledge the accomplished women behind companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. Women like Barbara Green and Elizabeth Hahn want nothing to do with the pro-abortion worldview preached by Planned Parenthood and its ilk.

Also, examine the photos and videos of the women outside the Supreme Court when the ruling was released. There are many images showing dozens of women who, moments after the ruling, were elated.

Ultimately this debate is not about women or contraception. Just as the marriage debate is an attempt, through the force of law, to legitimize homosexuality in America, the Hobby Lobby case was an attempt to force those of a different worldview to bow at the altar of liberalism and its views on sexuality.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Hobby Lobby: We’re Teetering on the Edge

The most stunning—and disappointing—thing about the victory won by Hobby Lobby at the Supreme Court yesterday is that the decision was a narrow 5 to 4 win. We’re one Supreme Court Justice away from the left having even more power of the law behind it to force even more of their perverted sex-obsessed lifestyle upon the American people.

After this ruling, the DOMA ruling, and a cascade of rulings by federal judges overturning the will of tens-of-millions of American voters when it comes to the definition of marriage—the institution upon which all sound cultures rest—it should be more apparent than it has ever been the important role that a U.S. President plays when it comes to the judiciary.

Back in 2008, after Mitt Romney dropped out of the race, and it became clear that John McCain was going to be the GOP nominee for President, I attempted to make “The Case for John McCain.” I pointed in particular to two specific duties of the U.S. President—Commander in Chief, and the power to nominate federal judges—and made note of the fact that America would be vastly better off with these duties in the hands of McCain instead of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Whenever the electorate will not give liberals the results they desire, as quickly as a Clinton can cash a speech check, they will turn to the judiciary. And if this doesn’t work, as long as they occupy the White House, they will use the power of the Executive Branch (with its “pen and phone”) to get what they want.

Conservative candidates for president would do well to regularly remind the often and easily distracted American voters of the judicial appointment power that rests with the U.S. President.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, June 20, 2014

Liberals Wage War on the Redskins

After the regime issued its latest diktat Wednesday via a three-judge panel at the Patent and Trademark Office, which ruled 2-1 to withdraw trademark protection for the Washington Redskins, Rush Limbaugh was pretty much spot-on when he noted, “This is Barack Obama.”

Actually, this goes beyond Obama (as the Patent and Trademark Office has tried this before). This is liberalism. This is what happens when liberals have power. Take note of those who cheered the decision: “The writing is on the wall,” said a jubilant Harry Reid. He notably added that, “The name will change and justice will be done…”  

Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell said, “We're so excited to know that finally people are recognizing that this issue can no longer be a business case for the NFL to use this patent.” What the Democrats should be excited about is that, for however brief a period of time, they don’t have to answer questions about Iraq, Benghazi, the IRS, an illegal immigrant invasion, and the like.

When it comes to public opinion on this issue, virtually every poll ever taken shows overwhelming support for the Redskins name. Even in the most liberal place in the country, Washington D.C.—which happens to be the home city for the team—two-thirds polled say the team’s name should not change.

What’s more, Native Americans in general support the name. Late last year, CBS Sports in D.C. reported on a poll that revealed 90% support for the Redskins name among Native Americans. In addition, dozens of American high schools use “Redskins” as their mascot. Most telling is the fact that, in almost all of these high schools, the majority of the students are Native American. Kingston High School in Oklahoma—where about 58% of the student body is Native American—has used the Redskins name for over a century. Speaking of Oklahoma, the word itself is derived from Choctaw words that translate “red people.”

Yet liberals, as they so often do, insist that this is a shameless act of racism by one of the most prominent sports teams in the U.S. As is typical with so many things liberal, the cries of “racism” defy common sense. What racist (or supposed racist) would want to use a derisive term of a people they despise as their mascot or symbol for something in which they take great pride? Eighty years ago can you imagine the KKK organizing a softball team and using the n-word for their team name?

As the Wall Street Journal smartly pointed out, “If names were meant to convey dislike—of, say, Vikings, Yankees or the Irish—then Redskins owner Dan Snyder would have converted to the Washington Harry Reids years ago.”

My high school alma mater uses “Warriors” as our mascot. I have more than a few yearbooks that are adorned with a handsome and regal Native American “Warrior.” My 27-year-old letterman’s jacket has the following patch on the shoulder of the right sleeve:

For years I wore it proudly, never imagining that the Warrior stood for anything other than something mighty, fierce, and brave. I suppose I must now pay reparations for the harm that my faux leather sleeves have inflicted on our culture.

The most telling thing about this brazen act of authoritarianism is that liberals actually perceive this as a moral issue. USA Today reported on the patent ruling and made reference to the Mid-Atlantic Church of Christ’s decision to boycott the Redskins as a “moral issue.” After the ruling, the “Change the Mascot” campaign issued a statement saying “If the most basic sense of morality, decency and civility has not yet convinced the Washington team and the NFL to stop using this hateful slur, then hopefully today’s patent ruling will…”

Earlier this year Think Progress, a liberal blog, reported on a poll by Public Policy Polling, a liberal polling organization, which revealed that 71% of Americans don’t want the Redskins to change their name. Unable to argue with such support, Think Progress decided to lecture its readers rhetorically, asking, “Does it really matter that a majority of Americans don’t consider the name offensive? Given our country’s history, is public opinion really the way we want to settle questions of offense or injustice on racial and ethnic grounds?”

In April of this year, Harry Reid took to the Senate floor and told Redskins owner Daniel Snyder that he should “do what is morally right” and change the name. All of a sudden the Democrats actually want to appeal to justice and a moral standard on an issue rather than public opinion, or the courts, or a board of liberal lackeys.

All one needs to know is that the moral code employed by liberals in this matter is the same one that has allowed for the slaughter of tens-of-millions of Americans in their mothers’ wombs, that tells us that homosexual sex is good and right, that a redefinition of the sacred institution of marriage is necessary and just, that it is immoral to refer to someone born with testicles as a man, that guns are immoral, and that it is “compassionate” to confiscate forcibly the wealth of one and give it to another. So yes, please, let us actually debate the morality and the justness of “Redskins” and all of these matters. Let us each clearly cast our moral standards before the American people, the courts, and most importantly, the Creator and see where we stand.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Thursday, June 19, 2014

The Friars and the Jesuits help lay the Foundation [An (unedited) excerpt from our next book--title withheld (for now!)]

Driven mostly by greed, and consisting mostly of Spaniards, the sixteenth century saw continued migration to the New World. The conquering Conquistadors were proving themselves to be as Godless as the native cannibals, including those who practiced human sacrifice. However, accompanying the Conquistadors were Franciscan and Dominican friars. These were deeply devoted Christians who had a great desire to be a light for Christ in lands that were steeped in spiritual darkness. Along with churches, these first friars built orphanages and schools to serve the Indians. Through their efforts, thousands of natives came to know Christ.

By the early seventeenth century, friar Alonso de Benavides reported that 80,000 Indians had been baptized, while over two-dozen missions in what is today’s American Southwest served ninety Indian communities.

Without fear of death (which many would experience) these brave friars would later enter what is now New Mexico and Lower California. The famed and universally loved Junípero Serra, a former professor of philosophy turned Franciscan Friar, established a total of nine missions, including those at San Diego, San Carlos, and San Francisco.

Serra was an accomplished intellectual and orator. He worked tirelessly and his zealous efforts to bring the lost to Christ made him a legend in his own time. There were instances when he walked hundreds of miles in a single expedition. By the time of his death in 1784, the nine missions he founded had converted several thousand native Indians to Christianity.

Until the King of Spain, Charles III, ordered their expulsion in 1767, the French Jesuits also had a presence in America’s West. However, the Jesuits efforts on the East Coast, though difficult, would go more undeterred. These zealous, brilliant, and disciplined “soldiers of God” were deeply committed to the mission field. As I noted with Columbus, such a commitment was necessary, as, along with the many other harsh experiences that came with an unfamiliar and untamed wild wilderness land, several Jesuits ended up as martyrs.

Not only were these brave souls martyred, but many were subjected to unspeakable tortures prior to death. The Iroquois were especially cruel. In spite of this, the Jesuits continued to minister to the Iroquois and other Indian nations. Thus, the light of the truth of Jesus Christ was penetrating the future United States of America from both coasts, and the foundation was being laid for the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled

More Transgender Madness

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution reported today on a South Carolina teenage boy, Chase Culpepper, who was distraught and angry at the fact that the DMV in the Palmetto State forced him to remove his make-up for his drivers license photo. A reporter noted that the DMV "does not allow anyone to wear a disguise in photos." The 16 year-old Culpepper insisted that he was not in disguise, but rather dressed as who he is.

Fox Carolina reported that Culpepper "said he was only dressed the way he does every day to school and to his job at McDonald's. He doesn't think he violated any rules and now he wants the DMV to let him re-take his license picture, wearing makeup." South Carolina DMV spokesperson Beth Parks said that since Culpepper's license records that he is a male and thus "he needs to look like a male."

Of course, Culpepper went to the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund for help. On June 9 the group contacted the DMV and, of course, declared that Culpepper's rights had been violated.

Culpepper's mom (surprise! no mention of dad) backs him all the way. "My government was telling my son, 'You must conform to our ideals of what a man should look like.' ... I'm very proud of him," she said. Yes, we're all so proud of young Chase. It takes so much courage for a young man to put on a dress and head down to the DMV these days.

Ms. Culpepper, and millions of Americans like her, is lost in her own big government hypocrisy. She laments the fact that the government won't photo her boy adorned as a girl, but she will surely celebrate as soon as the very same government forces us all to accommodate her young pervert.

You know where liberals will ultimately take this. Which state will be first to pass a law that says teenagers can be photographed for their driver's license in whatever way they "choose to identify?" Of course, as with so many things liberal, this opens the door for so much madness. Remember, rushing to conform to the perverse liberal notions of gender, Facebook introduced 51 gender identity options.

So when liberals pass such a law as mentioned above, what happens when someone is "bigender" (identifies as a man and a woman), or "gender fluid" (where gender identity and presentation are not confined to only one gender category)? What if a savvy and "gender devious" (When will Facebook add that one?) criminal, in order to conceal their identity, decides to cross-dress for his/her DMV photo?

Sadly, these are the sorts of questions with which a culture infected with liberalism must deal.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Some Inconvenient Truths about American Mass Murderers

Whether our nation is mourning the victims of yet another mass murderer, or murderers, the liberal politicians and pundits, like a toddler in charge of the TV remote, continue to play the same sorry episode from their progressive programming: guns are to blame and the government needs to do something about it.

However, when it comes to the worst mass murderers in the United States, there are several very inconvenient truths for those of the liberal persuasion, and none of them involves guns. First of all, of the ten worst mass murderers in American history, only 3 of them—Seung-Hui Cho, Adam Lanza, and George Hennard—used guns as their primary means of killing.

Of the four worst American murderers, Gary Ridgway (71+ victims), Andrew Philip Kehoe (44 victims), Ted Bundy (36+ victims), and John Wayne Gacy (34+ victims), none of them used guns to kill. Ridgway and Gacy strangled their victims. Bundy strangled, bludgeoned, and drowned his victims. Kehoe used bombs to kill his victims—mostly school children ages 7-12.

As one looks beyond the means of killing and examines the lives of these men, other troubling patterns emerge. Virtually all were from broken, or at least troubled, homes. Ridgway’s parents remained married, but his mother, Mary Ridgway, was a domineering woman who was prone to terrible treatment of her son.

Early in his childhood Ridgway was a chronic bed-wetter. After he wet his bed, his mother would berate him in front of his siblings and then give him cold baths “while paying special attention to his ‘dirtiest’ parts, that is, his genitals.” She would often perform the baths barely clothed herself. In his teenage years, Ridgway fantasized about having violent sex with his mother. No doubt that this is often what he acted out as he raped and strangled (not always in that order) dozens of prostitutes over a 22-year period.

Ted Bundy was born to Louise Cowell at the “Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers.” Initially Bundy was raised by his maternal grandparents Samuel and Eleanor Cowell. They presented him as their son and Louise as his older sister in order to avoid the social stigma of an illegitimate birth. Bundy would eventually discover the truth and expressed lifelong resentment towards his mother for the deceit.

Bundy was especially fond of his grandfather. However, Samuel Cowell has been described as a “tyrannical bully and a bigot who hated blacks, Italians, Catholics, and Jews, beat his wife and the family dog, and swung neighborhood cats by their tails. He once threw Louise's younger sister Julia down a flight of stairs for oversleeping.”

Ted’s mother would eventually head west to Washington State. There she would meet and marry Johnny Bundy who would later adopt Ted. The Bundy’s would have four additional children and Ted would describe this home as a “wonderful…solid Christian home” with “two dedicated and loving parents.”

Outside the home, young Ted encountered printed pornography which he described as sparking and fueling his perverse and violent attitudes towards women. Just prior to being executed, Bundy would note that “The most damaging kind of pornography - and I'm talking from hard, real, personal experience—is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces—as I know only too well—brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe.”

John Wayne Gacy grew up with a violent, abusive, and alcoholic father who often belittled and beat him. Gacy also was regularly molested at a young age by a family friend. Married in his early 20s to Marilynn Myers, Gacy and his wife moved to Waterloo, Illinois in the fall of 1966. Not long after relocating, Gacy became involved in wife swapping, prostitution, pornography, and illegal drug use. At this time, Gacy was also having homosexual encounters.

In the late 1960s Gacy was having sexual encounters with boys as young as 15. In 1968 Gacy was indicted on an oral sodomy charge—a charge he would not face in these “enlightened” times. Gacy plead guilty and served only 18 months of a 10-year sentence. By the 1970s he was again sexually assaulting teenage boys. Gacy also indulged in gay pornography. In 1972 he committed his first of dozens of murders.

From 1970 to 1973, Dean Corll of Houston, Texas kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered at least 28 boys ages 13 to 20. Corll’s parents divorced when he was six. As a young adult, Corll frequently enjoyed the company of teenage boys. Corll was shot and killed in August of 1973 by one of his teenage accomplices, 17-year-old Elmer Henley.

After the shooting, police were skeptical of Henley’s description of Corll’s crimes. Henley was proven correct after the police searched Corll’s home. There they found a sexual torture chamber. “There was a board with handcuffs attached, ropes, a large dildo and plastic covering the carpeted floor. There was also an odd wooden crate with what appeared to be airholes cut into it.”

Over a six-week period in 1971, to satisfy his sadistic sexual desires, Juan Corona raped and murdered over two dozen men. Corona would sodomize and then stab his victims. Adam Lanza’s parents were divorced. Aaron Alexis’ parents were divorced. Elliot Rodger’s parents were divorced and his father took pornographic photos that he sold online.

Instead of guns, the most common elements of the worst among us are broken homes and sexual deviancy. One reason liberals can’t stand to hear such information is that it defies a government solution. The left would much rather rant against firearms and seek legislation to restrict them.

Additionally, liberals in the United States have been complicit in the breakdown of the family and the spread of sexual immorality. Whether divorce, fornication, marriage, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, and so on, for decades now, in the name of “sexual freedom,” liberals have called what is evil good, and what is good evil. They have preached, promoted, and even passed legislation in defense of these “values.”

Thus, to hear that such things are a significant part of the lives of those who commit mass murder is a terribly inconvenient truth for leftists. In our culture, we usually debate only the legitimacy of killing our fellow human beings when it occurs in the womb. (Of course, along with robbing us of tens-of-millions of lives, abortion devalues human life in general and breeds violence.)

When the fruit of liberalism is revealed in mass murder, then liberalism becomes more difficult to defend. This is why when mass murderers act, liberals would much rather focus on an instrument than the character of the killers.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Gallup Reveals the Obvious: Our Moral Collapse Continues

Gallup is out with its latest “moral acceptability” survey. On 19 issues, Americans were asked, “In general, do you find the following morally acceptable.” The responses were ranked on a scale from “highly acceptable” to “highly unacceptable.” There was one issue—birth control, with 90% approval—that rated “highly acceptable” and nine, with approvals from 57% to 69%, that rated “largely acceptable.”

Of those 10 issues, the response to seven of them is Exhibit A in the case of the collapse of the family in America that we have witnessed the last few decades. On two of the other three issues—wearing animal fur, and medical testing on animals—Gallup wasted its time. What another sad indictment on our culture that one of the oldest, most distinguished research companies in the world sees fit to deem issues that result in the clothing of humans and advancements in medicine as morally questionable.

Of the seven issues that have direct impact on American families, along with birth control, there’s divorce, sex between an unmarried man and a woman (otherwise known as fornication), stem cell research using human embryos, gambling, out of wedlock births, and homosexual behavior.

Certainly not all of these issues involve things that are intrinsically evil. There certainly can be a moral case made for both birth control and divorce in certain situations. Also, though out of wedlock births almost always are the result of an immoral act at some point, given the prevalence of abortion (which, according to Gallup, 42% of Americans deem as “morally acceptable”) in our culture, choosing life is never the wrong choice.

Notice that, of the seven issues highlighted, six of them revolve around sex. This is no surprise in a culture that is obsessed with sex. As John MacArthur noted several years ago, the war that is raging between the City of God, or biblical Christianity, and the City of Man, or the satanic world system, surrounds one single area: sex. MacArthur observed that, “Within the moral realm in our society the conflict is almost exclusively about sex.”  Abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce, etc., he added, are all sexual issues.

Thus, it is also no surprise that out of the desire to do whatever we want to do sexually, biblical morality is increasingly abandoned and most Americans have decided to do “what is right in their own eyes.” Things that Americans once overwhelmingly considered immoral, to the point that many of such things were also illegal, have become popular to the point that, not only are such things now legal, but it is also easy to find churches in the U.S. that give their blessing to these behaviors.

Gallup reveals that it has been tracking annually the moral acceptability of most (12) of these issues since 2001 and the rest since 2002 (though the earliest I can find the question about porn use in the poll is 2011). In that short period of time we have witnessed a significant increase in the acceptability of many of the [im]moral issues, but particularly homosexual behavior—38% acceptability in 2002 to 58% acceptability in this year’s poll. As recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S. Additionally, every other sexually related issue in Gallup’s polling has gained in popularity since Gallup began its tracking.

Unsurprisingly, those identifying as Democrats have led the way in the increase of the acceptability of many of these [im]moral issues. For example, in 2003 52% of Democrats viewed having a child out of wedlock as morally acceptable. The number this year is 72%. Similarly, from 2003 to 2014, Democrats’ support for the moral acceptability of abortion went from 43% to 59%. Likewise, over the last dozen years, on every other [im]moral issue, Democrats have become significantly more “tolerant.”

In contrast, on out of wedlock births, moral acceptance by Republicans is unchanged (40%) from 2003 to 2014. Over the same period, the moral acceptance of abortion by Republicans has seen only the slightest increase: 27% to 28%. Democrats are also much more likely to support allowing gays to adopt than are Republicans.

Of course, as behaviors become more popular—as the immoral is deemed moral—then we see them occurring more often. The morally bankrupt media assists greatly in helping to paint the immoral as moral, often portraying good as evil and evil as good. Thus, whatever stigma was attached to immoral activity wanes from year to year.

For example, out of wedlock births has been steadily increasing from a rate of about 5% of all births in the U.S. in 1960, to over 40% of all births today. Likewise, U.S. marriage rates are at an all-time low. Porn performers and prostitutes seek legal legitimacy and “moral” acceptance, while transvestites grace the cover of our “distinguished” news magazines.

Ready to push the envelope of immorality even further, Time Magazine joyfully declares, “Nearly a year after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, another social movement is poised to challenge deeply held cultural beliefs.” Time goes on to conduct a very sympathetic interview with Laverne Cox, a man who is living his life as a woman. Of course, in this “mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,” this is something we are supposed to celebrate.

As schools begin to accommodate the transgendered, as states pass laws giving students the “right” to use whichever bathroom or locker room they feel like, as athletic departments seriously debate banning the use of gender pronouns, how long before Gallup decides it is time to ask Americans about their moral acceptance of transgenderism?

As our culture continues its descent into more and greater immorality, perhaps the best question to ask is “How long?” How long until families led by fathers and mothers are the minority? How long until it is no longer legal to speak or write the truth, as revealed by God, on sexual issues? How long before America wakes up? How long before we are past the point of no return in this moral collapse?

How long before we become as those described in the Psalms? “So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices.” (Psalm 81:12) The great Charles Spurgeon provides the perfect insight here: “No punishment is more just or more severe than this. If men will not be checked, but madly take the bit between their teeth and refuse obedience, who shall wonder if the reins are thrown upon their necks, and they are let alone to work out their own destruction. It were better to be given up to lions than to our hearts’ lusts.”

“‘[T]o walk in their own devices.’ –There was no doubt as to what course they would take, for man is everywhere willful and loves his own way,—that way being at all times in direct opposition to God's way. Men deserted of restraining grace, sin with deliberation; they consult, and debate, and consider, and then elect evil rather than good, with malice aforethought and in cool blood. It is a remarkable obduracy (stubbornly persist in wrongdoing) of rebellion when men not only run into sin through passion, but calmly ‘walk in their own counsels’ of iniquity.”

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

You keep our Deserter, we'll keep your Terrorists

As a teacher of mathematics, I have often (at least with more advanced/motivated students) pressed my students to understand the "why" of a proposition ("postulate" or "theorem" in mathematical terms). With the recent trade of five Taliban detainees held at Guantánamo Bay for American (I use the term loosely), Army Sgt., and accused deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, many Americans--at least those who don't swoon at the mention of "Obama"--are asking themselves "Why?" Why, especially with the midterm elections looming, would Obama o.k. the deal for a soldier who left his military outpost in Paktika Province, Afghanistan leaving a note behind that detailed his lack of support for the American mission and his desire to start a new life?

It's not just that this deal went down, but also the fanfare that the Obama administration put on announcing the deal. President Obama hailed Bergdahl's release saying that bringing home "our prisoners of war" is a "profound obligation within our military." Susan Rice, seemingly again out on another fools errand for the Obama administration, went on the Sunday talk shows declaring that Bergdahl served "with honor and distinction." Rice added that "Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield."

Soldiers who actually served with Bergdahl contradict both Obama and Rice. According to the New York Times:

“Yes, I’m angry,” Joshua Cornelison, a former medic in Sergeant Bergdahl’s platoon, said in an interview on Monday arranged by Republican strategists. “Everything that we did in those days was to advance the search for Bergdahl. If we were doing some mission and there was a reliable report that Bergdahl was somewhere, our orders were that we were to quit that mission and follow that report.”

Sergeant Bergdahl slipped away from his outpost, the former senior officer said, possibly on foot but more likely hiding in a contractor’s vehicle. “He didn’t walk out the gate through a checkpoint, and there was no evidence he breached the perimeter wire and left that way,” the ex-officer said.

It was not until the 9 a.m. roll call on June 30 that the 29 soldiers of Second Platoon, Blackfoot Company, learned he was gone.

“I was woken up by my platoon leader,” said Mr. Cornelison, who had gone to sleep just three hours before after serving watch from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. “Hey Doc,” his platoon leader said. “Have you seen Bergdahl?”

Platoon members said Sergeant Bergdahl, of Hailey, Idaho, was known as bookish and filled with romantic notions that some found odd.

“He wouldn’t drink beer or eat barbecue and hang out with the other 20-year-olds,” Cody Full, another member of Sergeant Bergdahl’s platoon, said in an interview on Monday also arranged by Republican strategists. “He was always in his bunk. He ordered Rosetta Stone for all the languages there, learning Dari and Arabic and Pashto.”


Mr. Full, then a specialist in the platoon, said he and other platoon members grew increasingly bitter at the time they were spending looking for Sergeant Bergdahl. “He had sent all his belongings home — his computer, personal items,” said Mr. Full, now 25. He said Sergeant Bergdahl used to gaze at the mountains around them and say he wondered if he could get to China from there. Other platoon members said that Sergeant Bergdahl wrote Jason Bourne-type novels in which he inserted himself as the lead character.

The anger toward Sergeant Bergdahl increased exponentially after Sept. 4, when they learned that two members of Third Platoon, which routinely went on tandem missions with Second Platoon and who they believed were also searching for Sergeant Bergdahl, had been killed in an ambush. Pfc. Matthew Martinek and Lt. Darryn Andrews, both of them friends of Mr. Cornelison, died in the ambush.

Is this just another example of the incompetence of this administration, or, like the war on fossil fuels, the war on the unborn, and the war on marriage, is the Bergdahl deal the result of perverse liberal ideology? Hopefully good conservatives will get us to the answers.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World