New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book (as low as $9.99).
Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

If you "Like" this page, please visit our Facebook page for
The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary/AND NOW: Trevor's Columns Archived:

Thursday, May 24, 2018

Another School Shooting: Why and What Should We Do?

Two days before the recent mass murder of students at a Santa Fe high school in Texas, very near my home, a 13-year-old girl was killed when the car her father was driving hydroplaned and collided with a school bus. The girl’s father—who was also seriously injured—may face vehicular homicide charges because his tires were too slick.

Two weeks ago we endured the third anniversary of the death of my beloved pastor and father-in-law, David Fitzpatrick. David was killed by an impaired (alcohol and drugs), hit-and-run motorist. David’s killer pleaded guilty to first degree vehicular homicide, among other charges, and is now spending (hopefully) many years in prison.

Last month, just minutes from our home, a man with a history of domestic violence murdered his ex-wife and her sister, shot and wounded a 16-year old, and then killed himself. Thirteen-year-old and two-year-old children also in the home were spared serious injury.

On average, there are about 50 homicides a day in the U.S. Whether through criminal neglect or murderous intent, upon the sudden and tragic death of a loved one—among a myriad of other questions—each day in the U.S., thousands of Americans are left to ask “Why?”

I recall vividly the gut-wrenching moments on May 4, 2015 when we knew there was a bicyclist down in the area where my father-in-law used to ride. The calls to David’s cell phone that would never be answered; the rushed and lonely drive from my job to the crash site, still not knowing for sure whether David was alive; the moment I encountered the Georgia State Patrol officer who confirmed our worst fears; pulling into my mother-in-law’s driveway and watching her, my wife, and my wife’s sister awash in grief; attempting to comfort our four children; making the phone calls to David’s and Margie’s siblings, my parents, et al, telling them of the terrible news—like so many others who deal with such a loss, all of this sent me to an awful place I had never before been and never want to return.

What’s more, the investigation into David’s death led us to discover that his killer had a decades-long criminal past (including multiple drug-related crimes) that was ignored—due to a lack of proper inquiry—by our local law enforcement when he was on trial for other charges in 2010. If the judge then had been aware of these past convictions, David’s killer almost certainly would have then faced serious jail time instead of mere probation. We will always wonder if David might still be alive if the district attorney’s office had done its job in 2010 and presented the evidence needed to put his killer behind bars. As is often the case in these tragedies, we sometimes wonder: would this have changed things? And: how do we prevent this from happening again?

Thus, after once again witnessing students slaughtered at the hands of a lone gunman bent on evil, I understand—though I typically strongly disagree with—those who want “action” from their government on “gun control.” I also understand those asking, “Why did this happen to us?”

As unpopular as this is likely to be, I’m going to say it anyway. The answer to “why” these dreadful things happen is nearly as old as creation itself: sin. As my late father-in-law would sometimes point out in his sermons, if you are hurting, if you are suffering, it is almost always due to one of two things: your sin or the sin of another. Just prior to the first murder in the history of humanity, God warned Cain,
If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.
The very next verse describes Cain murdering his brother Abel. Cain—like the rest of us—should have learned from the failure of his father and mother: walk with God and live in peace, or go your own way, do your own thing—i.e., rule your own world—and live in fear and suffering. Whether we like to admit it or not, operating out of our own selfish desires, each of us is capable of terrible things.

Most of us do not think ourselves capable of murder, but Jesus warned us that anger in our hearts makes us “subject to judgment.” On countless moral matters we have ignored the Word of God and gone our own way. This is the ultimate problem facing the world, and there’s only one solution.

This has always been the case. From very near the beginning of time, human beings have been killing one another, stealing from one another, enslaving one another, sexually abusing one another, and so on. God gave a perfect Law—upon which all other human laws should be based—to reveal to us what is right and what is wrong. Knowing that none of us is capable of perfectly keeping His Law, and thus were (and are) “guilty” of breaking all of it, God made a Way that we all might be “saved.”

Another unpopular sentiment: in the eyes of God, your sin and my sin make us just as guilty as a mass murderer. What’s more, because of our desire to elevate human “wisdom” and determine truth for ourselves while at the same time ignoring God’s wisdom and His eternal truths, we have become blind to what is sin, or “evil.”

For example, large swaths of our culture think that hunting for sport is morally unacceptable but killing an unborn child is okay. Additionally, many Americans—especially so-called “millennials”—believe the “right” to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm is more important than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

In other words, and as most in their right-minds well know, many in our culture have stooped to calling what is good evil and what is evil good. To say that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman—in other words, agreeing with God on the matter—will quickly get one labeled a “bigot.” To oppose the radically perverse gender agenda of the modern left—e.g., simply pointing out the biological differences between a male and a female—can draw protests and threats of physical or financial harm.

Since Columbine (1999), using a very liberal definition of a “school shooting,” there have been 287 deaths as the result of someone wielding a gun at or near a school. In that same period, millions of children have been slaughtered in the womb. Countless children and adults alike have suffered—many to the point of death—as the result of divorce, “shacking up,” sexual promiscuity, and the like.

To stem the tide of evil, we must encourage a culture—in our personal lives, as well as our homes, businesses, schools, and government—that embraces the eternal truths of our Almighty God. We will never completely eliminate, or solve the problems of, evil in this world. We will not make any real progress—something that can be achieved—towards defeating evil in this world unless we recognize truly what is evil and what is to be done about it.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, May 11, 2018

Liberals’ Lust for Their Own “Infinity Stones”

I recently took my children and one of their friends to see Avengers: Infinity War. (WARNING: movie spoilers ahead!) As a kid I was a fan of the superhero universe—Marvel and DC (remember these guys?)—and I’ve passed that interest on to my children. We’ve seen most of the Marvel and DC films. (Note to the studios: we will never attend the R-rated crap!) In spite of a wide array of characters with varying story lines, Marvel Studios has done a good job of weaving a common thread throughout multiple films in order to bring most of their characters together in Avengers: Infinity War.

This effort has proven to be wildly successful as Infinity War just had the biggest opening weekend of all-time. When we got to the point in the film where the plot—and the motives for the plot—were made clear, the thought occurred to me that those watching who are corrupted by a liberal worldview had to be conflicted, or at least confused.

Thanos—the chief antagonist of the film—is, of course, a murderous thug (who looks like the love-child of Barney the Dinosaur and King Kong). He has tremendous power and is bent on having things his way. And “his way” means killing off half of the universe. As the film makes clear, he is motivated to do such in order to bring “balance” to what he sees as an over-populated universe.

Sounding much like a member of the modern left and declaring that a planet’s—and the universe’s—resources are “finite,” Thanos sees himself not as a warrior or a conqueror, but as an agent of mercy—even a “savior.” He merely seeks “balance” so that we can all live happily ever after. So what if he has to murder billions in the process?

Several writers have already tackled the irony of a bunch of Hollywood leftists casting as a villain a Hulk-like being obsessed with fixing the “problem” of over-population. Whether championing the “right” to kill children in the womb, promoting the ever-imminent—but never realized—threat from “climate change,” and so on, the modern left has long used the myth of overpopulation to further their efforts at getting what they really want: power. If only they had the “Infinity Stones.”

The so-called “Infinity Stones” are the common thread skillfully woven throughout many of the previous Marvel films. There are six of these stones, with each giving its owner a unique and tremendous power. As explained in Guardians of the Galaxy, “[B]efore the universe first began, there were six singularities. These six singularities were then condensed into concentrated ingots. Whoever controls all six stones and wields them using the Infinity Gauntlet has the power to reshape reality.”

In other words, if one possesses all of the stones—Thanos’ goal in Infinity War—then one gains “omnipotence and omniscience.” At the end of Infinity War Thanos has all of the stones. He merely snaps his fingers and his plan for population control takes effect. Viewers watch as close to half of the Avengers heroes—along with half of the rest of humanity—are dissolved into ash (think of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt).

Whether big government liberalism, socialism, communism, and the like, modern leftists have long lusted for the power to “reshape” the world into their perverse version of “reality,” and a mere snap of their fingers would suit them just fine. We have seen a taste of this in the real world. The electoral process has often proven too slow or unreliable for today’s liberals, thus the judicial or executive equivalent of a finger snap has often given American liberals exactly what they wanted.

Everything from abortion to same-sex “marriage,” immigration policy (DACA), environmental policy (e.g., Obama’s war on coal, war on oil, etc.—thanks to his “pen and phone”), perverse gender edicts, dangerous military edicts (based on an ignorant and perverse view of gender), and the like, have been achieved via some political “snap of a finger.” Whatever the excuse—overpopulation, global warming, sexual “rights,” gun control, health care, “hate” speech, “income inequality,” and so on—liberals look for most any opportunity to gain the power necessary to usher in “utopia.” If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Of course, the real-world equivalent of the Infinity Stones is totalitarianism, and far too many of today’s American left are far too comfortable with an all-powerful state led by those who are “wise in their own eyes” and devoted to the “theology of self.” Of course, those liberals seeking to win an election in the U.S. will never (yet) admit this, but if you watch and listen closely enough, you will hear the little totalitarians reveal themselves. Leftist politicians, pundits, and sheeple alike have given strong clues that oftentimes, they would just rather not bother with democracy, much less our Constitution. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

This is particularly true when devoted leftists in the media and on campuses feel threatened by information and ideas (read: the truth)—from the likes of the “thought outlaws” who operate in the “Intellectual Dark Web”—that they don’t like. It has become commonplace for these agitprop provocateurs of the American left to encourage and actually employ violence, threaten careers, and otherwise advocate for censorship when it comes to anything that threatens the tenets of modern liberalism. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Whether to silence man-made climate change skeptics or pro-lifers, punish Christians, grab guns, or even reverse a presidential election, democrat politicians—where they still have power in the U.S.—have displayed a stunning penchant for totalitarianism. Remember when a cadre of democrat Attorneys General—including the now infamous Eric Schneiderman—stood with Al Gore and threatened—via “investigations”—“climate skeptics?”

Remember when California passed a law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion? (The case challenging this “law” was just heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.) In addition, California wants to outlaw leaving the homosexual lifestyle (via the infamous “You Must Stay Gay” bill) and thus criminalize the Bible. So that their attempts at implementing their totalitarian dreams is much easier, liberals want to criminalize guns, thus the 2nd Amendment has got to go. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Ironically, few things make a modern liberal squeal louder than the notion that there is an Absolute Power to which we all will eventually have to give an account. Almost certainly—if possible—they would snap their fingers and make Him disappear as well. Thank God there’s no such thing as Infinity Stones.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, April 20, 2018

Chicken Fried Hate

As has been well documented lately, the left is hating on Chick-fil-A…again. No one should be surprised by this hate, least of all, Chick-fil-A. Back in 2012, Chick-fil-A became a prime target of the left when its then President and Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy—son of founder Truett Cathy, and now the Chairman and CEO of Chick-fil-A—gave a benign interview to Baptist Press (the Cathys are long-time members of New Hope Baptist Church in Fayetteville, GA).

The following exchange between Mr. Cathy and Baptist Press is what first drew the ire of the left.
The company [Chick-fil-A] invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation ( The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.

It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.

“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

“We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

“We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
[Emphasis mine.]

“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
Note that Mr. Cathy didn’t mention politics, political parties, legislation, the courts, or anything that could be deemed political. He didn’t make reference to any organizations other than his own business and charity. Neither did he say anything about homosexuality or same-sex “marriage.” Nevertheless, and predictably, the left still decided to make an example out of the fast-food icon.

Apologists for the LGBT agenda attempted to organize a nationwide homosexual “kiss-in” to take place at Chick-fil-A restaurants. LGBT enforcers within the Democrat Party took notice of Cathy’s modest attempt to spread the truth on marriage and family. They were not about to let even the least amount of light shine into their darkness. As CNN noted,
Philadelphia City Councilman James Kenney sent a letter to Cathy this week, telling the CEO in blunt terms to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you,” and vowing to introduce a resolution at the next council meeting condemning the company.

“There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection,” Kenney wrote.

San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee tweeted: “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

In Chicago, Alderman Joe Moreno has been working for months to block construction of a Chick-fil-A in his district, citing traffic congestion and worry about the company's “business practices.”

Mayor Emanuel, a Democrat, said this week that “Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values. They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members.”

And in Boston, where Chick-fil-A is considering opening a location, Mayor Thomas Menino, also a Democrat, made it clear the chain would not be welcome.

“I don't want an individual who will continue to advocate against people's rights. That's who I am and that's what Boston's all about,” he said.
After this heat from the left, Mr. Cathy did what some considered a bit of a retreat—or even a “sell out”—in his efforts to spread the truth on marriage and the family. The left-media took notice and wrote headlines like “Chick-fil-A promises to stop giving money to anti-gay groups.” Homosexual activists claimed to have been shown tax records that indicated “Chick-fil-A had pulled its support of groups opposing gay marriage - including the Family Research Council, the Eagle Forum and Exodus International — as early as 2011.”

This information was reportedly circulated among gay advocacy groups “to show the chain’s willingness to change.” Mr. Cathy denied charges that Chick-fil-A had capitulated to the homosexual agenda, declaring, “Chick-fil-A made no such concessions, and we remain true to who we are and who we have been.”

However, Chick-fil-A also released a statement saying that “our sincere intent has been to remain out of this political and social debate…” If only leftist corporations and organizations were so accommodating.

In the six years since this initial dust-up between Chick-fil-A and the LGBT tyrants, and in spite of the relative silence from the chicken sandwich giant on the highly important matters of marriage and family, the left’s hatred for the Christian-owned business has not abated. Whether it’s in the pages of The New Yorker, on the Huffington Post, on the campuses of a growing list of leftist-dominated colleges or universities (and even high schools), or out of the mouths of totalitarian-minded liberals, the hate-filled, intolerant left continues to attack Chick-fil-A.

In other words, it makes little difference whether Christians (or those like-minded)—in fast food (chicken or pizza), photography, baking, floral design, sports, bathrooms, schools, hospitals, or even homes or churches—are vocal about the truth on marriage, family, sex, gender, and so on, the left is already bent on vengeance.

What’s more, those corporations, small businesses, schools, “churches,” and the like, who’ve aligned themselves with the perverse LGBT agenda are rarely hesitant to let it be known loudly and proudly where they stand on sex, marriage, and the family. Virtually all of corporate America and the government schools have, in one way or another, sold their soul on these grave matters.

And like it or not, part of this fight is political. In spite of losing the electoral battle on marriage—in a landslide—the left fought on and eventually—as is so often the case in such things—got the court victory they lusted after. Because they have made a god of government, the principle instrument for the left to spread its corrupt worldview is politics; thus, we must fight in the political realm.

We are far past the moral crossroads Al Mohler referenced several years ago. There is no room for compromise, and there is little to no opportunity for silence. If high-profile Christian business owners, athletes, entertainers, politicians, pundits, pastors, and so on won’t boldly and loudly stand for the truth on something as fundamental as marriage and the family, what can they be trusted to stand for? To whom much is given, much is required.

Again, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If anything is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can never be compromise, and there should never be silence.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, April 9, 2018

What—and When—Will Be the Next Chappaquiddick?

I was born 11 days after Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown (or suffocate) in Poucha Pond on Chappaquiddick Island. Though I’m more familiar than most with the infamous events of July 18, 1969, throughout my life I, like most others, have heard surprisingly little about the details of what should have been one of the most told—albeit tragic—stories of American political figures.

After Miss Kopechne’s death, instead of facing a jury, resigning in shame, or losing in a landslide, Ted Kennedy—aided and abetted by a sympathetic liberal American media—continued his career in politics and went on to become (to those on the left) the “Lion of the Senate.” Kennedy served an obscene 46-plus years in the U.S. Senate and, by 1980, even had the hubris to seek the U.S. Presidency.

While in office, Kennedy was an unapologetic champion of modern American liberalism, which, of course, is why the liberals in the media protected him. It took death to remove Kennedy from office in 2009—an all-too frequent occurrence among our entitled political elite.

Nearly a decade after his death, and in spite of the efforts of some powerful people on the left, along with inaction by the mainstream media, an independent film studio has finally gotten around to telling the ugly story about Kennedy’s lust, drinking, neglect, selfishness, and cowardice, which led to Miss Kopechne’s death. With the film Chappaquiddick, it’s only taken about 50 years for the mainstream media to give us, from many indications (I’ve yet to see the film), a truthful re-telling of the events that should’ve at least ended the political career of—but more justly sent to jail—the last of the infamous brood that was born to Joe Kennedy.

While the world finally gets to witness the unvarnished truth of the events of Chappaquiddick, in the name of lust, greed, or political power, the modern left continues to deceive. Whether the personal failings of democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the illicit past of democrats like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren, or the kooky—yet dangerous—causes of democrats such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders, an inevitable reckoning with the truth awaits each of these individuals, those who’ve conducted themselves similarly, and their enablers.

Far more dangerous than the deceptions that enable the political rise (or line the pockets) of individuals are the ideological lies that form the foundation of, and thoroughly permeate, modern liberalism. In fact, it is for the perverse cause of liberalism that corrupt individuals are protected, promoted, and even revered. Though their personal lives might embody a liberal worldview, if one is seen as a threat to liberalism—i.e. Donald Trump—then any and all skeletons are quickly tossed out of the closet and loudly and exhaustively waved around for all to see.

Perhaps in another 50 years Americans can watch The Great Russian Collusion Delusion. In this future blockbuster, my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can watch the story of how nefarious elements within the Democrat Party, the Obama administration, the establishment media, the FBI, the DOJ, and the “Never-Trump” crowd relentlessly pushed a fake Trump-Russia-collusion conspiracy. People a half century from now would learn that, instead of finding (or manufacturing) any real illicit election collusion, the Trump haters themselves conspired to steal, and later overturn, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—a 304-227 electoral victory by Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

After a few more decades of failed predictions by the climate-change doomsayers, one of Mark Steyn’s children can write and direct the documentary film The Inconvenient Climate, or, alternatively, The Day After Global Warming Died. In what will surely become the greatest documentary film of all time, viewers will learn of what has been called “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.”

Now that we’re 45 years since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling, and probably taking issue with what is “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time,” a future champion of the pro-life community is likely to document the undisputed science of life in the womb and tell the horrific story of The Abortion Holocaust. Since 1973, over 60 million of the most innocent and helpless Americans have been killed in what should be one of the safest places in the universe—their mother’s womb.

Among many other riveting things, the bold truth-teller who artfully paints the real picture of this tragedy can reveal how abortion apologists—even well into the 21st century—regularly employed the same tactics of the Nazis and murderous communists and imperialists of the 20th century. Like today’s abortionists, these genocidal fools often dehumanized their targets so that it was easier to justify their slaughter.

The Abortion Holocaust can also show how indifference toward human life led to men like Kermit Gosnell. If you don’t know of Gosnell, it’s unsurprising. As was the case with Ted Kennedy (more than once), when Gosnell’s abortion “house of horrors”—where newborn children targeted for abortion were slaughtered even after they escaped their mother’s womb—came to light, the media ignored or attempted to cover for him. In spite of some strong efforts, Gosnell’s story has yet to be told.

As soon as real women get tired of losing athletic competitions to fake women—sometimes known as “trans-women”—the sports-themed film The Natural (Born Woman), or, alternatively, White Men Can Jump (Higher than Women), can be made. In this story the audience will learn how those corrupted by a liberal worldview, as in the case of a child in the womb, again ignored or denied science in the name of the perverse cause of sexual “tolerance” and allowed men to take trophies from women.

Likewise, as soon as enough children who suffered from being forced to grow up without a mother or a father—along with all of the other disadvantages that come from being exposed to the homosexual lifestyle—grow into adulthood, we can watch A Crying Shame.

In this film people will learn that—in spite of the electoral will of the American people—again mirroring the abortion debate, five unelected justices forced a legal re-definition of marriage upon the American people. Along with the suffering of helpless children, the audience will also learn how Christians were targeted by the vengeful LGBT left.

Because modern liberalism is littered with lies—because, as Fay Voshell (and others) have noted, the cornerstone of liberalism is The Lie that we get to determine truth for ourselves—future filmmakers should be busy. Hopefully the success of Chappaquiddick will encourage them.

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, March 31, 2018

On Liberals and the 2nd Amendment: Why Repeal What You Already Ignore?

Make no mistake about it, in the hands of the American left, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not safe. For that matter, virtually nothing wise or precious or sacred or holy or otherwise good is safe with those corrupted by a liberal worldview. Whether marriage, the family, the church, life in the womb, education, small businesses, fossil fuels, law enforcement, the military, the Constitution, and so on, time and again liberals have proven themselves to be on the wrong side of the truth.

What’s more, in the hands of today’s leftists, the Second Amendment—and anything else in the U.S. Constitution with which modern liberals are unhappy—is in jeopardy whether or not it is “repealed.” As most now well know, John Paul Stevens—a retired associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—recently gave his direct endorsement to the shockingly foolish—but increasingly popular among democrats—idea that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

Few should be should be surprised by Stevens’ position in this matter. With the way-too-close Heller decision a decade ago, he almost then got his wish. In 2008, liberals were a mere one vote short of effectively killing the Second Amendment. In a republic that properly respected and understood its Constitution, Heller wouldn’t have been necessary, and under the absurd circumstances that such a case should make it to the highest court in the land, the vote to uphold the Second Amendment wouldn’t be close.

As Charles Cooke put it,
Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself.
In their efforts to remake America into their image of a leftist utopia, rarely have liberals let the Constitution stand in their way. For decades now—whether as public executives, legislators, or judges—liberals have conveniently ignored the Constitution, or “interpreted” it beyond recognition.

For two centuries the “right” to healthcare, housing, a “living wage,” marriage, education, and the like, escaped the vast majority of Americans—including our politicians and jurists. In the late 19th century, President Grover Cleveland explained well the prevailing thought on government and a citizen’s “right” to public funds. While taking a stand against government aid involving a very deserving orphanage in New York City during a severe economic crisis, Cleveland—a Democrat—said,
I will not be a party to stealing money from one group of citizens to give to another group of citizens. No matter what the need or apparent justification, once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again…
In 1887, after vetoing a bill that appropriated $10,000 to buy grain for several drought-stricken Texas counties, Cleveland declared,
Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Nevertheless, in recent decades, as they increasingly made a god of government and sought to build a massive welfare state (through which votes could be purchased), democrats and those like-minded have fully embraced the notion of “paternal care on the part of the government.”

Today’s liberalism stands upon two duplicitous notions that both require a modern “interpretation” of our Constitution: 1.) the godless pagan principle of “Do What Thou Wilt,” and 2.) the presence of an “omnicompetent” Government that is all too eager to mother us. And as C.S. Lewis put it, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

Of course, and in spite of the claims of modern liberals, such a political philosophy does not bring justice, and it certainly does not promote liberty. On the contrary, as Lewis also noted, such a modern State exists “not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good—anyway, to do something to us or to make us something.” Something indeed. Lewis depressingly concludes that under such a regime, “There is nothing left of which we can say to them, ‘Mind your own business.’ Our whole lives are their business.”

One of the primary functions of the U.S. Constitution, as the Preamble expressly declares, is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.” One of the chief means through which such Blessings are “secured” is by ensuring the right of the people to arm themselves. Of course, a government that increasingly makes our “whole lives…their business” is in direct conflict with the idea of securing “the Blessings of Liberty.” Thus, we get “interpretation” of a “living Constitution”—especially when it comes to things like guns.

To repeal a Constitutional Amendment is an arduous effort that would require serious legislative lifting. Thanks to Barack Obama, democrats today are in no shape to pursue repeal of anything, but thanks in large part to men and women like John Paul Stevens, they don’t have to.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America