Wednesday, January 21, 2015

What's Wrong With Incest? (Redux)

So people are "aghast" that an 18-year-old young woman from the Great Lakes region of the U.S. is planning to "marry" her 39-year-old biological father and move to New Jersey. (The move to New Jersey, evidently, is because the Garden State doesn't criminalize incest between consenting, mentally capable adults. How "progressive" of them.)

The young woman grew up not knowing her father, losing touch with him around age five, and when she turned 17, found him--where else--on Facebook. They started chatting. She found out they had lots in common (after all, he is her dad), and that he was "so good-looking!"

As bizarre as all of this is, the real story here is not that a young lady has decided to "marry" her biological father. The real story is the reaction of liberals who have been so eager to redefine marriage as it has been known for millennia. Redefine in a manner that legitimizes homosexuality, that is. Incest, well that is another matter altogether.

Jezebel magazine is an excellent case in point. (In case you're (blissfully--trust me) unaware, Jezebel (true to the biblical namesake), "is a [liberal] gossip rag run by snarling, hypocritical [feminazi] shrews.") Their piece on this matter (I won't link to it.) is entitled, "This Interview With a Woman Dating Her Father Will Haunt You Forever."

"Incest is a known taboo, and is illegal in every state in some form or another," the author of the Jezebel piece notes. Replace "Incest" with "Homosexuality" and you have a sentence that, for over two hundred years, almost no serious person in this country would have batted an eye at.

As the interview part of the article begins, the author ominously declares, "I'll warn you now: it's difficult to read her description of her childhood relationship with her father, knowing that they're dating now." As "difficult" as reading or hearing about men having sex with men?! Even more telling are the comments after the piece. 

"This is NOT ok," notes one. "I'd really like to hear how anyone thinks this is okay," asks another. It's the "sickest thing imaginable," says another. Others use words like "backwards" and "objectively wrong." Remember, by and large almost everyone you would read on the site--from the author to nearly everyone who comments--are RAGING liberals, who viciously support everything homosexual, including same-sex marriage.

"This is just wrong," wrote another, adding that "surely the NJ legislation (sic) can change this?!" GASP!--You mean have the government in the bedrooms of consenting adults?! What in the world has become of the state of liberalism today?!

The "internet is aghast" notes an Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogger. Why? Upon what moral standard are they relying? If same-sex marriage is not a "bad thing," then, as I've asked before, what's wrong with incest?

As I noted then, apparently it continues to escape most, if not all, on the left, that eventually one must “discriminate” when it comes to defining marriage [as well as deciding what is "taboo"]. I suppose, at least at this point anyway, that incest is a line too far for many liberals. But why? Why the moral outrage over incest? What’s wrong with incest? Who or what says that incest is wrong? What moral code are liberals using to condemn incest?

Apparently it also escapes most liberals that, whether people realize it or not, our objections to incest almost exclusively stem from a biblical admonition against it. Why else oppose it? Because of the likely genetic harm faced by children produced from such relationships? Since when does the left concern itself with the unborn? After all, we all know well their solution to that.

Copyright 2015, 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

Monday, January 19, 2015

Same-Sex “Marriage:” The Way Around the Death Tax

Surprise! President Obama wants to raise taxes. In addition to other increases, as part of his new budget, President Obama wants to raise the estate tax (aka the “death tax”). Americans for Tax Reform notes that the increase would be from 40% to nearly 60%. This is about a 50% increase. However, as I have noted in the past, all property left to a spouse is exempt from the estate tax.

With the perverse redefinition of marriage that liberals across the U.S. have pushed on the country—which, after the Supreme Court rules on the matter, may soon give us same-sex “marriage” as the law of the land—some interesting tax scenarios may become available for all who are willing to take advantage.

Again, as the link above indicates, I’ve already pointed all of this out, but since Obama has put the estate tax in the headlines, my “delicious scenario” deserves a rehashing:

Once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion—unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage”—and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (or both!) (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about “love” (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and “love is love,” right libs?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing. I mean, what protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults? Upon what moral standard would they rely? After all, we would not want to “demean” a couple whose “moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Also, there would be no violation of God’s law either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can only exist as union of one man and one woman. Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic. I suppose liberals could always change their “marriage” laws and require that same-sex “marriages” occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don’t want that! (How wickedly ironic would that be? We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring it!)

Copyright 2015, 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, January 11, 2015

The Cost of Crossing the Devoted

I’m under no illusions that the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was a frequent critic of Islam out of some noble desire to point people to the truth. The weekly publication recently attacked by Islamic terrorists is doggedly left-wing and anti-religious, targeting Judaism, Christianity, along with Islam. Nevertheless, when it comes to “infidels,” Islamic terrorists give no credit for equal-opportunity satirists.

In other words, it makes no difference if you’re an irreverent French cartoonist, a young Pakistani student, Nigerian villagers, or an Iraqi Christian child who simply wants to “love Jesus,” your fate is the same. Yet, not all under the wicked boot of Islam suffer death; some are only kidnapped and made sex slaves, while others, like liberals in Saudi Arabia, are imprisoned and flogged.

In what some are describing as a stunning development, after the Paris attacks, USA Today published an op-ed from the “radical” Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary. Though many blasted USA Today for allowing Choudary space to spew his terrorism apologetic screed, what is most surprising is that USA Today would allow itself to be a voice in revealing the true nature of Islam.

Choudary began, “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone.” He later added, “Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime [dishonoring the Prophet Muhammad] under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’”

Contrast such vengeance with the message of Christianity, where Jesus instructs His followers to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44);” and where the Apostle Peter instructs, “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you might inherit a blessing (1 Peter. 3:9).”

In spite of this gross disparity, many liberals, whether in Europe or the U.S., in order to show they are sufficiently “tolerant,” don’t treat Islam as if it were on equal footing with all other religions; they elevate it to a special class. Many have been sounding the alarm for years on the “no-go zones” that continue to pop-up throughout Europe.

There are hundreds of these no-go zones in Europe, with France alone containing over 700. “No-go” essentially means, if you’re not Muslim, you are not welcome, and thus, you’d better stay away. This applies not only to ordinary citizens, but to police, fire-fighters, and other such officials. Thus, these no-go zones have become places where nations have ceded sovereignty to Muslim rule.

Signs are hung that read, “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone, Islamic rules enforced.” Of course, Sharia law can mean “honor” killings (murder), forced marriages, polygamy, and so on. In many of the no-go zones, there is also rampant gang activity, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Much of this activity goes unreported or is ignored by authorities. Worse, as France reveals, jihad is allowed to prosper, and the scourge of liberalism is again revealed for what it is: a tragic form of quackery that enables the likes of a cancer such as Islamic jihad.

Worse still, some are reporting that similar no-go zones are on the way to the U.S, if they’re not already here. Will American liberals follow the lead of the European quacks and tell us that in the name of “tolerance,” this is their “right?” After all, who are we to judge another culture? What harm can come to us if we simply live and let live?

This is how it began with homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." First we were told that homosexuality was normal and did not need treatment. Thus, homosexual behavior did not need to be criminalized. In other words, we must be “tolerant,” you know, “live and let live.” Soon, we were told that homosexuals were being “discriminated” against and needed the protection of the law. Once this occurred, homosexual relationships began to get attention. Homosexuals sought and won the “right” to adopt. Thus, children became pawns and victims in the race to normalize homosexuality.

Of course, if homosexuals can be parents, then they should be able to “marry,” and here we are. But even the perverse notion of allowing homosexuals to “marry” is not enough. We must all—individuals, businesses, schools, churches, and the like—be forced to “submit” to the idea of homosexuality as normal, acceptable behavior, and same-sex "marriage."

The most recent case in point is that of former Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran. Mr. Cochran was suspended and just recently fired for self-publishing a book a little over a year ago that tells the truth on homosexuality. Cochran took less than a half-page to say that homosexuality, along with other sexual sins, is “unclean,” “vile,” “vulgar,” and dishonors God.

And as was the case with the French cartoonists, Cochran’s words could not go unanswered. He struck at the heart of one of the tenets of liberalism, and thus, there had to be consequences. It didn't cost him his life, but like the bakers, florists, and photographers who also recently ran afoul of the gay mafia, it cost him his livelihood. And thus we see, whether radical Islam or radical liberalism, there is a high cost to crossing the devoted.

Copyright 2015, 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, December 30, 2014

Jolie, Pitt, and Gender Madness

With the Christmas Day release of the Angelina Jolie-produced and directed film, Unbroken, I came across the news that discussed the red-carpet appearance of Jolie’s family at the film’s premiere. Jolie was down with chickenpox, so her family was out in force supporting her and the film. With Jolie absent, much of the media attention turned to her eight-year-old daughter, Shiloh.

Shiloh has drawn the media’s eye because, despite being a girl, Jolie and her husband, actor Brad Pitt, are adorning the child as if she were a boy. In other words, it seems that Jolie and Pitt are willing to use the poor child as a pawn in furthering the feminist-homosexual agenda that dominates today’s liberalism.

Jolie and Pitt would never openly admit to using their child as a tool in their feminist-homosexual games. They claim, as do many in these situations, that they are simply allowing their child to choose this path. When Shiloh was as young as two-and-a-half, Pitt claimed to Oprah Winfrey that the little girl only wanted to be called “John.” In 2010, when Shiloh was about four, Jolie told Vanity Fair that her child “wants to be a boy…She thinks she’s one of the brothers.”

Liberal apologists for the feminist-homosexual agenda tell parents that they should simply accept a child’s cross-gender behavior. Liberals like Jolie and Pitt are only too happy to oblige. Because of their complete acceptance of homosexuality in all of its perversions—including transgenderism—they must have their own personal lives reflect this warped worldview. What better way to show your commitment to such a worldview than to have your own child live it out.

Make no mistake about it, this easily could be described as child abuse, and yet the mainstream media is doing nothing but lending their support to such perversion.

The pro-homosexual publication The Advocate recently noted how sharp young Shiloh looked at the red-carpet premiere dressed in a suit and tie like her brothers, and sporting her hair shortly cropped. The UK Telegraph reported glowingly on Shiloh’s appearance at the premiere as well. They also took the opportunity to instruct us all in how we are to raise good little gender-benders.

“To explore what it means to be both genders is also totally normal,” said Linda Blair, the clinical psychologist sought out by the Telegraph. And of course, the implication is that such exploration is never to be discouraged. “[T]he problem,” says Blair, is that we have “suppressed” such exploration “for so many generations, that people are still not comfortable with it. You can’t become what you are until you know what you’re not.”

Of course, “what you are” according to “gender feminism” is, as Mary Brown Parlee put it in Psychology Today in the late 1970s, “as much a social decision as a recognition of biological fact.” Or, as another feminist writer put it, “Although many people think men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blue-print, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.”

Until as recently as 2012, the common-sense notion that men who believed they were women, and vice-versa, was a mental illness, prevailed. Bowing to the feminist-homosexual agenda, in late 2012, the APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its diagnostic manual. However, the politics of the APA doesn’t change sound science and morality.

As the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital noted earlier this year, transgenderism is “a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” He adds, not treating transgender disorder properly “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” Almost certainly “grim psychological outcomes” loom for 8-year-olds, who surely know nothing of transgender disorders, but who have been conditioned for years to live as the opposite sex.

Since at least the 1970s, when among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section “Boys’ Toys” and “Girls’ Toys,” liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls—aside from the obvious biological ones—were the result of “patriarchal cultural biases.”

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to “dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine.”

Jolie and Pitt are just a famous example of what is playing out all over the country when it comes to gender feminism, and things are even crazier than Dr. Dobson imagined when he penned Bringing Up Boys in 2001. The U.S. Dept. of Education just directed schools that receive federal funds to allow students to be placed in classes that align with their “gender identity” when it comes to placement in single-sex classrooms. This includes sex-education classes, which are often segregated by gender.

The state of New York just issued a regulation that requires Medicaid to cover treatment for “transgenders,” including sex-change operations. Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center threatened to sue the Georgia Department of Corrections if it didn’t provide hormone treatment for a male inmate who wishes to live as a woman. As was noted in 2013, the notorious traitor Bradley Manning also wants taxpayers to foot the bill for his “conversion” from male to female (which is impossible).

A superior court in Maine recently fined a school district $75,000 for refusing to allow a boy, who identifies as a girl, to use the girls’ restroom. This year also saw the Minnesota athletic league, in the name of “transgender inclusivity,” vote 18 to 1 to allow children to participate on sports teams according to whichever gender with which they identify. Of course, the state of California leads the way when it comes to accommodating gender perversions in its state schools—all the way down to the kindergarten level.

This is just a sampling of the gender madness that is sweeping the U.S. (For more, see my marriage/family/sexuality archives.) Liberals across the U.S., aided and abetted by the Democrat Party, are, through legislation and the courts, pushing the transgender agenda. At least eighteen states (note: those dominated by liberals), plus the District of Columbia, have laws that prevent “discrimination” against the transgendered, including restroom access.

If liberals had their way, they would pass similar legislation at the federal level, thus forcing every community across the U.S. to accommodate the transgendered (see the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). And instead of Jolie and Pitt and their kind being investigated, or at least socially rejected, liberals would have them celebrated from sea to shining sea.

(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

Monday, December 22, 2014

Left-Wing Lynch Mob Claim Officers Ramos and Liu

In the wake of the execution of New York City police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by liberal vigilante Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the president of the city’s largest police union, Patrick Lynch, laid blame for the murders at the feet of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. The blood of the dead officers “starts on the steps of City Hall,” he said, “in the office of the mayor.”

In a separate statement, Sergeants Benevolent Association Police Union President Edward Mullins, blasted Mayor de Blasio as well and declared that, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.” While de Blasio is certainly complicit in the tragic deaths of these two officers, he is far from alone.

Coming off a staggering electoral defeat, in order to breathe fresh life into liberalism, when it came his turn, Mayor de Blasio merely followed the lead of his fellow liberal race-hustlers in rushing to paint a militant, racist picture of police across America. Liberals such as de Blasio, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama saw the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner as little more than a political opportunity.

The cries of “racism” in the deaths of both Brown and Garner was little more than a tragic attempt to use a “snarl-word” to perhaps get potential voters to again consider the Democrat Party. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, “the whole Democrat Party now is one big grievance industry.”

As Rush also noted, the left is out there doing their best to rouse-up these rage-filled angry mobs. “[C]ollege professors, these pop-culture false idols, elected Democrats, the media, are literally making their followers, i.e., base voters, insane with rage and anger.” And just as no one should be surprised that a publication devoted to liberalism would flub a story on campus sexual assault, no one should be surprised that a member of the liberal base would take the chant of “What do we want? Dead Cops!” to its literal fruition.

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, December 14, 2014


Recently, a Christian man--Theodore Shoebat, who runs the hypocrisy (and frequent vulgarites) of the militant homosexual agenda. Mr. Shoebat called 13 gay-owned bakeries and asked them to bake a pro-biblical marriage cake. All refused. Some used deviant vulgarities in their rebuff of Mr. Shoebat.

Recall that a Christian-owned bakery was successfully sued when they refused to provide a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage" on it. I have well chronicled the wide variety of Christian businesses that have suffered the wrath of the homosexual agenda, and our foolish courts who have, for the most part, supported this perverse agenda.

Will these "intolerant" pro-homosexual businesses be held to the same standards as the Christian-owned businesses? Don't count on it. As is typical with the tenants of liberalism, it's never really about truth and justice. It's about furthering the liberal agenda, by whatever means necessary.

Observe Mr. Shoebat's experience with the pro-homosexual baker's below as he asked them to bake a cake with the message "Gay Marriage is Wrong." (Warning: explicit language.)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Friday, December 12, 2014

Rolling Stone, et al. Bemoan the Culture They Helped Create

Why is anyone surprised that Rolling Stone would flub a rape story? Since when did a magazine so devoted to a liberal worldview, and that borders on—and, by my standards, crosses over into—pornography, become a trusted source for matters involving women and sexual assault?

For over four decades, Rolling Stone has spilled thousands of gallons of ink glorifying the hedonistic, misogynistic culture of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. Its covers have been adorned with nude men and women—sometimes together. Pornography is a regular topic, and it’s almost always put in a positive light.

In April of this year, Rolling Stone did a near 4,000-word exposé on the infamous Miriam Weeks—aka Belle Knox—the Duke freshman who decided to pay for college with a career in the porn industry. Describing America’s reaction to the news of a barely-out-of-high-school 18 year-old—without the knowledge and consent of her parents—becoming a porn sensation, the author declares, “On the one hand, said some, why shouldn't a consenting adult engage in a perfectly legal profession in order to better herself through higher learning? And what right does society have to tell women what to do or not do with their bodies, anyway? But, on the other hand, you know, WTF?” As if those of us who stand aghast at Miss Weeks’ decision can only manage “WTF?”

I won’t link to the piece. It’s full of vulgarities and perversions, and it paints as rosy a picture as possible for a still teenage girl who has prostituted herself to the point that her first scene as a porn star was described as:

“I remember getting naked, and the guy said, ‘You have cuts on your legs. You're a cutter.’ He could tell I had written the word ‘fat’ in my thigh, so he started calling me fat.” Once they called “action,” she was pushed to the ground and slapped. “And I said, ‘Stop, stop, stop. No, no.’ And then they stopped, and they were like, ‘We have to keep going.’” 
“And I was like, ‘Just please don't hit me so hard.’ But it went on like that, me getting hit, pushed, spit on. I was being told I was fat, that I was a terrible feminist, was going to fail all my classes, was stupid, dumb, a slut. But I got through it. You know how you kind of zone out sometimes? I just disassociated.’”

She just “disassociated.” One of the great lies of the porn industry, whether a participant or a consumer, is that one can simply “disassociate” such activity from the rest of one’s life. In other words, as any good liberal knows, porn consumption or participation is just like the consumption or participation in an abortion—it’s no big deal.

Rolling Stone was so impressed with Miss Weeks that, just two weeks prior to running the disastrous “A Rape on Campus” piece, they published her defense of prostitution in their opinion section. That’s right, a publication that wants us to take them seriously when it comes to a matter as grave as rape, devoted a part of their opinion pages to a19-year-old who, in addition to now devoting her life to porn, has also added “prostitution apologist” to her résumé. Miss Weeks informs us that prostitutes are only trying to make an “honest living,” and we should avoid the notions of “abused hookers and human traffickers” that are so often associated with prostitution.

Unsurprisingly, Miss Weeks could hardly be more wrong. As I noted back in April, prostitutes are a tragic example of what often results when women use their bodies as a means to an end. Prostitutes are more likely than any other group of women ever studied to be, among many other terrible things, victims of rape and homicide.

In 2008, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times points out that, “The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering.” According to a study by The American Journal of Epidemiology, the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women—working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34. The Journal concluded, “Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.”

Why are men more violent toward prostitutes? Because in prostitution, a woman’s humanity is removed. She becomes little more than a commodity to be consumed. Thus, a very unhealthy attitude toward women in general is fostered. Studies have shown that men who regularly use prostitutes are more likely to be sexually aggressive with women who are not prostitutes.

Of course, in pornography, women (and men) are also commodities to be consumed. Gail Dines, a highly regarded academic, author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, and considered “the world's leading anti-pornography campaigner,” concludes that “the earlier men use porn, the more likely they are to have trouble developing close, intimate relationships with real women.”

Dines adds that, “Some of these men prefer porn to sex with an actual human being. They are bewildered, even angry, when real women don't want or enjoy porn sex.” Of course, such anger often results in violence. Dines also notes that “porn sex” is becoming increasingly violent (as Miss Weeks’ experience demonstrates).

“We are now bringing up a generation of boys on cruel, violent porn,” Dines says, “and given what we know about how images affect people, this is going to have a profound influence on their sexuality, behavior and attitudes towards women.” In Dines’ research, she has found that the prevalence of porn means that men are becoming desensitized to it. Thus, men are getting caught in the vicious cycle of looking for images that are ever more harsh, violent, and degrading toward women.

Ms. Dines goes on to describe images that are too horrible to mention here. “To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound,” she concludes. Additionally, Dines points out that, “Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear.”

Yet women like Miss Weeks ignorantly and defiantly conclude that it’s the “conservative Bible Belt culture of the South” that makes a “highly misogynistic and oppressive atmosphere for women.”

In early 2013, the insufferable Lena Dunham, doing her best Miley Cyrus imitation on the cover, also had a spread in Rolling Stone. Dunham, who, when she’s not writing (and performing in) TV shows and books that promote and glorify abortion, casual sex, drug use, and everything else that makes a liberal’s life complete, also takes topless selfies in support of the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood.

Demonstrating that, for liberals, not all rapes and rapists are created equal, it seems that Planned Parenthood is also in the business of protecting pedophiles. A recent investigation reveals that girls as young as 10 were taken by their abusers to Planned Parenthood facilities for abortions and birth control. Because Planned Parenthood staff failed to report the crimes, the sexual abuse continued for years. Some girls were brought repeatedly for abortions, yet no questions were asked.

Earlier this year, the pro-life group Live Action caught Planned Parenthood giving dangerous and violent sexual advice to girls as young as 15. According to American Thinker’s Drew Belsky (Live Action’s communications director at the time), “As viewers can see in our preview, Planned Parenthood has an institutional policy of endorsing and recommending dangerous sexual behaviors to underage girls. These include whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation. Remember, the counselors in these videos believe that they are talking to a 15-year-old girl.”

“Whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation”—sounds something like what often occurs during a rape.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in USA Today, recently pointed out more liberal hypocrisy when it comes to rape. Terry Bean, the co-founder of the largest pro-homosexual advocacy organization in America, the Human Rights Campaign, was recently arrested and indicted on two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after allegedly having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online last year.

Bean is also co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and is a major donor to the National Democratic Committee and a major financial supporter of Democrats across the U.S., including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Bean has made multiple trips to the White House and has even been on Air Force One. In other words, on issues related to homosexuality, Bean has the ear of virtually every leader in the Democrat Party.

Rolling Stone, Lena Dunham, Planned Parenthood, and other such liberals to whom “the narrative” is the priority, can never be trusted to tell the whole story when it comes to matters as grave as rape. Worse, the sexual perversions that plague our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault, liberals are mourning a culture that they helped to create. 

(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

Sunday, December 7, 2014

For Liberalism, It's Always About "The Narrative"

After members of the Fellowship of Ferguson Fabricators, also known as the Congressional Black Caucus, gathered on the floor of the U.S. House on Monday to showcase the St. Louis Rams’ new touchdown signal, otherwise known as the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture, Thomas Sowell likened the display to Nazi propaganda.

I don’t usually like allusions to Nazism tossed around in our political debates—it’s too often used simply as hyperbole—but liberals today certainly are following the messaging strategy famously articulated by Joseph Goebbels: repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and people will believe it.

Defending the actions of his congressional cohorts to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Democrat representative Al Green brashly argued that, “It’s not enough for things to be right, they must also look right.” The Houston congressman (Is there any surprise that the place where pastors’ sermons are subpoenaed—because they contradict the current liberal narrative on marriage and sexuality—would elect the likes of Congressman Green?) also accused Kelly of telling only “one side of the story.”

In a stunning display of hypocrisy, the looters and rioters in Ferguson, Missouri accused CNN of promoting a “certain narrative.” In other words, while shining a bit of light into darkness (It seems that even CNN can sometimes stumble onto the truth, even when it doesn’t mean to!), CNN was doing damage to the liberal narrative in Ferguson. And for liberalism, “the narrative,” not truth, is essential.

As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

This skill has been keenly tested with the events in Ferguson. The liberal apologists at Time Magazine went so far as to pen a “Defense of Rioting.” Sounding like the puppet of President Obama and the ally of the immoral that she is, Time’s Darlena Cunha instructs us that, “When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable.”

Seemingly desperate to show off her liberal cred, Ms. Cunha evokes Darwin and adds, “Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society.” Such an ignorant statement must be born of desperation; otherwise we must conclude that Time is in the habit of employing ignoramuses. She painfully continues, “Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets.”

Ahh, the ever elusive liberal utopia. It seems hopelessly lost on Cunha and her ilk that the decades of pursuit of such nonsense by liberalism is ultimately what has yielded Ferguson and other such dystopic nightmares. To distract from the nightmares, and even to excuse them, the narratives continue. Instead of actually dealing with what is wrong in Ferguson, liberals give us vague lectures about “justice,” “structural inequality,” a “culture of oppression,” and, of course, “racism.”

The khaki-creased “conservative” at The New York Times, David Brooks, demonstrates that his intellectual palate prefers modern liberal narratives to the notion of absolute truth when he spoke on Ferguson. He said, “This is not a question of good versus evil, right versus wrong. Racial inequality has become entangled in all sorts of domestic problems…”

Brooks’ editorial colleague at the “newspaper of record,” Nicholas Kristof, devoted a five-part series recently to explain why “Whites Just Don’t Get It.” Democrat Representative Eleanor Holmes said that the facts in Ferguson don’t matter to her. And on and on it went and continues.

Just prior to the second dose of Ferguson riots, in order to help sell abortion and sexual promiscuity, and in a spectacularly failed attempt to elect Democrats, liberals all across the U.S. saturated the media with the “war on women” narrative. So violently is this narrative protected and sold, the unborn are dehumanized to the point that no limits on the age of the mother or the unborn child are tolerated.

Demonstrating their continued penchant for calling evil good and good evil, and in a sad attempt to take the moral high ground on abortion, Katha Pollitt, author of Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, writes, “Terminating a pregnancy is always a woman’s right and often a deeply moral decision. It is not evil, even a necessary evil.”

Late this past summer, in the Washington Post, pro-abortionist Janet Harris said that abortion should never be considered “difficult” or “immoral.” In order to de-humanize the baby, and thus make us feel better about killing it, Harris declares, “To say that deciding to have an abortion is a ‘hard choice’ implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.”

That’s right Ms. Harris, because it’s all supposed to be about you. In order to promote big government, liberals deftly lecture us about how they care about those in need, and about how, if we would only give them the power, they would make a better world for all of us. Ms. Harris’s above conclusion reveals what liberalism is really all about: a “Dictatorship of Pride.” In other words, under liberalism each of us is “free” to do “what is right in our own eyes.”

“Pride leads to every other vice,” the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis reveals. “It was through pride that the devil became the devil…it is the complete anti-God state of mind.” This is why I find liberalism so repulsive. In almost every moral issue of our time, liberals stand opposed to the truth.

The narrative that says that an unborn child is not a life worth protecting is one of the most enduring lies of liberalism. In order to sell this lie, we now must suffer the “heart-warming” tales of women who’ve decided to kill their unborn children. And of course, the mainstream media is only all too eager to help. In October of this year, the pro-abortion media was beside itself celebrating the “beautiful,” “brave,” “powerful,” and “heartwarming” letter written by an anonymous Reddit user that revealed her plans to abort her unborn child.

The abortion narrative has its roots in the sexual narrative preached during the sexual revolution of the 1960s: that we all have the right to do whatever we wish in the sexual realm, which has also “given birth” to the unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. To promote this perversion, and distract from the truths of homosexuality, liberals again employ those heart-warming tales that are supposed to distract us from the darker side of whatever it is they are promoting.

Liberals have been recently put to the test on this narrative as well. Terry Bean, the co-founder of the largest pro-homosexual advocacy organization in America, the Human Rights Campaign, was recently arrested and indicted on two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after allegedly having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online last year.

Bean is also co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and is a major donor to the National Democratic Committee and a major financial supporter of Democrats across the U.S., including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Bean has made multiple trips to the White House and has even been on Air Force One. In other words, on issues related to homosexuality, Bean has the ear of virtually every leader in the Democrat Party.

In this case liberals are forced to protect their narrative. This too is a common approach taken by liberals when “inconvenient truths” come to light. Very little is being written or spoken when it comes to Mr. Bean. Of course, it’s not as if liberals are incapable of reporting when it comes to homosexuals and crime. How many Americans are still under the illusion that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a “homophobic” hate-crime?

In order to push the homosexual agenda, for nearly two decades liberals have continued to promote this lie. Author Stephen Jimenez, himself a homosexual, has been instrumental in helping to reveal the truth in this matter. In 2013 Jimenez published The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard. Shepard’s life, it turns out, is a sad tale of drug addiction, drug trafficking, child molestation, and rampant sexual promiscuity. Shepard’s murderer, Aaron McKinney, was his drug partner/rival as well as his homosexual lover. Both Shepard and McKinney were heavy meth users as well as dealers.

Though Shepard was killed in 1998, for over 10 years his narrative thrived to the point that Democrats passed major legislation in his name. The Congressional Democrats passed, and President Obama signed the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act in 2009. A few brave souls attempted to point out the lie that is the Shepard narrative. On the floor of the U.S. House, North Carolina Representative Virginia Foxx attempted to point out the Shepard hoax.

The left went nuts. The nuts at MSNBC went even nuttier. Keith Olbermann named Foxx his “World’s Worst” and called her “criminally misinformed.” In his typical angry-anchorman speak, Olbermann continued to spread the Shepard myth by telling his audience that Shepard’s killers lured him away by “pretending to be gay.”

After Jimenez’s book came out just over a year ago, the pro-gay publication The Advocate finally asked, “Have We Gotten Matthew Shepard All Wrong?” No matter though. As the piece puts it, “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.” And there you have it: it’s okay to lie; it’s okay to promote “the narrative,” as long as the end justifies the means.

Of course, the most recent offspring of the sexual narrative that came out of the sexual revolution is the lie that is same-sex “marriage.” So swiftly has this narrative taken off that what just barely a decade ago would have caused even the most ardent liberal politician to squirm to defend, is now openly celebrated and promoted. Though there is nothing in the 200-plus years under our Constitution to suggest any idea that our Founders would have been anything but repulsed by the mere mention of two men or two women marrying, judges across the U.S. are rushing to declare same-sex marriage “constitutional.”

Although polling data shows an increase in the acceptance of same-sex “marriage,” when put before voters, the vast majority of states have overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage. Rogue judges deceived by the liberal narrative on marriage and sexuality are overturning the will of the U.S. electorate.

One issue that, again, at least according to most polls, the liberal narrative has yet to sway many Americans on is global warming—I mean climate change. The left is undeterred, however, and as is almost always the case, the narrative continues.

The narrative here is so powerful that many liberals have made their devotion to the climate into a religion. Ian Plimer, a geologist, author, professor of earth sciences and mining geology, as well as an ardent atheist and Darwinian evolutionist—which, normally would make him a darling of the political left—calls global warming “the new religion of First World urban elites.”

Plimer adds, “Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and [failed] Western Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read [IPCC reports], has prophets [Al Gore, et al] who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries...; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences.” Leave it to an atheist to recognize a religion when he sees one.

Whether polar bears and the always “disappearing” arctic ice (that continues to set records for volume), or blizzards, cold-snaps, droughts, heat-waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild-fires, etc. that always have useful human (and animal) victims, and dramatic television footage, the left again employs sympathetic stories to sell the narrative. It’s also quite useful when virtually any weather disaster can be written into the climate change narrative.

Again, like with virtually every issue discussed here, liberals are using the climate change narrative to push significant legislation and official government policy. Because, for liberals, the solution almost always lies with government and political power.

In this case, such legislation and policy is usually aimed at fossil fuels. Operating under the myth that man-caused carbon emissions are warming the planet, liberals are waging war on oil, coal, and natural gas. President Obama, yet unable to win over American voters with his lofty climate rhetoric, has made it a mission to use his executive power to foist the left’s climate agenda upon the world. As with the federal judges and same-sex “marriage,” (and for that matter abortion as well), the oligarchs of the left know best, and as long as they have the power, it will be used.

For a man who is supposedly one of the smartest, if not the smartest, men ever to be president of the United States, Obama’s climate agenda has painted him into a political corner from which there is no escape. Oil prices are currently just below $70 a barrel, down over $40 per barrel since June of this year, and it continues to fall. The price is less than half of what it was just prior to Obama taking office.

The drop is due to major growth in U.S. production, which is due to American innovations such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling, which the left hates. In 2012, to help further the pro-climate change, anti-fossil fuel narrative, Warmist Matt Damon even made a movie about the “horrors” of fracking. In a bit of twisted irony, Damon’s anti-fracking film was funded in part by foreign oil wealth.

The drop in oil prices has led to a significant drop in the price of gasoline across the U.S. The price is well below $3 a gallon and, like oil, is expected to continue to drop. Such a drop in energy costs for Americans is helping to invigorate the U.S. economy, but because of their war on fossil fuels, liberals can’t take credit even if they wanted to. Instead, we are warned about “The Trouble With Cheap Oil.”

“We are awash in cheap oil” laments the uber-liberals at the New Yorker. Liberals love higher oil and gasoline prices because, “High oil prices would force governments, corporations, and consumers to find another way to power the world.” Did you see that? We need to be “forced” to find another way to power the world. Most liberals are far too comfortable “forcing” their agenda upon America. “Force” is at the heart of liberalism, and that is why so often false narratives can be justified, and why so often a big government agenda is pursued. After all, what better instrument to force an agenda than big government?

And thus we see, whether climate change, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion, racism—and for that matter, immigration, gun control, education, and so on—liberalism is not concerned with the truth, but with whatever narrative will put liberals in power.

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, November 30, 2014

Liberals Again Prefer Fantasy to Fact

It almost never fails. In spite of physical evidence and sound eyewitness accounts, today’s liberals refuse to acknowledge what plainly contradicts their preferred meme on any of the favored tenets of liberalism. Whether global warming, marriage, life in the womb, energy, homosexuality, foreign policy, defense policy, immigration, healthcare, or the scene of a crime, liberals all across the U.S. find themselves looking to manufacture “facts” to fit the world in which they wish to live.

“Truth is incontrovertible,” wrote Winston Churchill, “Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.” When confronted with a truth that they don’t like, what better describes many modern liberals than panicked, ignorant, and full of malice? Of course, the chaos following the recent grand jury decision out of Ferguson, Missouri is the latest case in point.

Since the death of Michael Brown, how many chants of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” have we heard? How many posters and t-shirts have been emblazoned with what we now know was nothing but a lie?

The thousands of pages of grand jury testimony, which included details concerning a significant amount of physical evidence, finally brought to light what really happened on the night police officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. There’s so much evidence that disputes the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” narrative that even the likes of the AP has started to question whether Michael Brown was indeed an innocent victim of police brutality.

The mention of Brown with his hands up is found throughout the grand jury documents. According to the AP, the accounts are so widely varying it’s as if witnesses, or alleged witnesses, were describing totally different scenes.

However, the liberal faithful remain just that. Taylor Gruenloh, a 32-year-old protestor from near Ferguson, declared that “Even if you don't find that it's true (Brown was shot with his hands up, surrendering), it's a valid rallying cry.” He adds that. “It's just a metaphor.” So for weeks now, liberals have lectured, looted, and lusted for vengeance based on nothing but a metaphor?

“This is not about one boy getting shot in the street, but about the hundreds just like him who have received the same callous and racially-influenced treatment,” said Oakland demonstrator Gabe Johnson. Hundreds? I’ll bet Mr. Johnson couldn’t name ten, but “hundreds” sounds so much more menacing. Mr. Johnson, and those like him, can justify their angry and misguided efforts with “hundreds.”

As the AP explains, “To some, it doesn't matters whether Brown's hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.” As many well know, liberals are always looking for the next “symbol” to promote America as a nation full of racists. Hand-in-hand with this, many liberals are also always on the lookout for the next excuse to protest, “occupy,” riot, burn, pillage, plunder, or any other such activity that doesn’t require innovation, an interview, or a clock to punch.

After Brown’s death, in lieu of looting, it seems at least some under the influence of liberalism gave it the old entrepreneurial try. Reportedly, back in the middle of October, Brown’s paternal grandmother, Pearlie Gordon, along with a few cohorts, attempted to sell Michael Brown merchandise in the parking lot of Red’s BBQ, a Ferguson area barbecue joint. According to police reports (surprise!), shortly after 1 p.m. on October 18, about two dozen individuals were fighting in the parking lot of Red’s.

Apparently, a crowd led by Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, McSpadden’s mother Desureia Harris, and McSpadden’s then boyfriend (now husband) Louis Head, rushed the merchandise stand and assaulted Gordon and others present. One victim ended up in the hospital. The police report stated that McSpadden was heard yelling “get her ass.” McSpadden was also accused of punching Gordon.

Such a display, along with Louis Head’s call to “burn this bitch down,” after the grand jury’s decision was announced, along with the video of Brown robbing the convenience store prior to being shot, certainly does no favors to the “gentle giant” label that was so frequently used to describe Michael Brown. After all, isn’t it at least probable that Brown was somewhat likely to display the same thuggary and brashness exhibited by his matriarchs?

Yet, privileged liberals tell us that it’s Officer Wilson’s account that is unbelievable. Upon reading Wilson’s grand jury testimony, Ezra Klein finds it “unbelievable. Literally.” Just to clarify for those of us less smart than he, Klein expounds on what he means by “unbelievable:” “I mean that in the literal sense of the term: ‘difficult or impossible to believe.’” Got it?

For Klein, it is “difficult to believe” that a 6-foot-4-inch, 300-pound 18-year-old who had just committed a violent robbery, while high on drugs, would dare challenge or attack a police officer who was confronting him. Again, this is in spite of the video inside of the store that shows Brown callously and arrogantly shoving the clerk who dared to request payment for the items that Brown was about to steal from the store.

Adam Howard of MSNBC tells us why he can’t believe Darren Wilson. In spite of the physical evidence and multiple eyewitness accounts, Howard simply refuses to believe that Brown would have charged at Wilson. He laments that too many of us “refuse to see the collective tragedy of [Michael Brown’s, Rodney King’s, et al] stories and instead accept the official line of what took place wholesale.”

What we refuse to do here is to cower to liberalism and ignore the facts. What we refuse to do is coddle criminals while condemning cops. What we refuse to do is to encourage those who would resort to lawlessness in their pursuit of “justice.” And the only “line” being dangled here is that by Howard and his ilk.

As another, wiser, Michael Brown instructs us, what Ferguson (and the rest of the world) needs is not more protests, platitudes, and politics, but redemption.

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, November 25, 2014

Ferguson Again Erupts With Liberalism

When the news came down that the Ferguson grand jury had declined to indict police officer Darren Wilson, what ensued was sadly all too predictable. The burning, looting, shooting, and the like to "protest" unpopular police or government actions have become all too commonplace for those who are under the influence of liberalism.

As I noted in August of this year, after the surveillance video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store was released--which set off more random acts of liberalism--Ferguson is and has been somewhat of a mess for the very same reasons virtually every other urban area in America is a mess: liberalism.

Ferguson has long been dominated politically by Democrats. St. Louis County Prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, who took the evidence to the grand jury, is a Democrat. In the past election, which saw Republicans make gains all over the country at every level, Democrat County Councilman Steve Stenger won the race for St. Louis County executive. This is in spite of the perceived close ties Stenger had (and, I presume, still has) with the increasingly unpopular McCulloch.

Of course, it is exclusively liberals who are stoking the racial tensions in Ferguson. Liberals all across the U.S. are attempting to make political hay out of the grand jury's decision. President Obama again decided to interject himself into the Ferguson situation, giving veiled cover to the Ferguson rioters, saying that reacting in anger is "understandable." He also carefully managed to throw the police under the bus, calling on them to "show care and restraint" and "work with the community, not against the community," and amazingly concluded that those rioting and destroying property amounted to only "a handful of people."

Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that civil rights charges are still possible. The professional race-pimps and publicity prostitutes like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who make their living off of situations like what is occurring in Ferguson, will almost certainly again be on the scene. Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal proudly declared on MSNBC that what was happening in Ferguson was "St. Louis' race war."

As Dennis Prager rightly points out, what is happening in Ferguson is not due to a racial divide, but a moral one. Of course, liberalism is rooted in moral relativism, and thus, while killing children in the womb, redefining marriage, sexual perversions of every kind imaginable, "redistribution" of wealth, and wanton destruction of other people's property can be justified, defending oneself from a violent, high-on-drugs thief is, no matter the physical evidence, an unjust act that requires vengeance. Sadly, today's liberals are all too willing to comply.

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