Thursday, February 26, 2015

GA Democrat David Scott is a Food Stamp Fool

U.S. Democrat Congressman David Scott, who represents Georgia's 13th congressional district, recently revealed himself to be little more than a fool when it comes to food stamps and the family.

U.S. Congressman David Scott

Yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee met to review the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP--or in other less politically correct terms, "food stamps"). During the hearing, Scott began, "First of all, the situation regarding employment and jobs, poverty, all of that. All of that has been structured into our economic, social policy over the last quarter-century."

Proving himself a good member of the "He-Man Hate-America Club" that Rudy Giuliani helped expose, Scott said that the U.S. had a "policy of sending so many of our young eligible fathers to prison." This was nothing more than a lame attempt at justifying the recent massive growth in the food stamp program. Scott added, "Our prison population went from 300,000 in 1975 to over two million today. These are providers who are not there. This is why we have so many single female head of households. I mean, so when you look at everything we have done, we've got to correct some of these things first."

Scott is correct to link the breakdown of the family with poverty in the U.S., and we certainly need to "correct some of these things first." As Scott himself points out, "Sometimes, it’s not getting the right answer that matters if we don’t set up the right problem to get to that right answer."

However, as is typical with virtually every Democrat politician, his search for the "right answer" behind the breakdown of the family is completely misguided. As is the case with most every Democrat in the U.S. Congress today, Scott has a terrible pro-family voting record. And, of course, like all good liberals, his solutions to the problems that result from the breakdown of the family are expensive government programs.

Additionally, Congressman Scott is so blinded by his liberal ideology that he doesn't see any fraud in the food stamp program. Scott asked, "Where are examples of the fraud? Where are the examples of the abuse?…I can’t find any answers on that. I want somebody to tell me, where is the waste? Where is the abuse? And where is the fraud…" While they were trying to stifle their laughter, I sure hope someone on that committee had the good sense to answer Mr. Scott's questions. If nothing else, they could ask Congressman Scott why he doesn't even bother to read government reports that reveal the massive fraud and abuse that exists with food stamps.

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

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Neal Boortz is (Still) an Idiot on the Moral Issues

I often eat my lunch (11:45-12:15) at school in my classroom. When I do, I usually turn my little clock radio next to my desk on to WSB (Atlanta). This means I catch the very end of the Herman Cain show, the noon news, and the very beginning of Rush’s show.

This past Friday, Neal Boortz must’ve substituted (as he sometimes does) for Herman Cain. I heard a brief political discussion between Boortz, WSB’s morning host Scott Slade, and WSB’s chief political correspondent (often heard on Sean Hannity’s radio show), Jamie Dupree. As soon as I turned on the radio, I heard Boortz ranting—as he often does—about the attention republicans are giving to the “social issues.” He specifically mentioned same-sex (I think he said “gay”) marriage.

I can’t yet find any audio of the exchange from Friday, but Boortz sounded very much like he does here:

In this exchange with Jamie Dupree in late 2012 on “gay marriage” Boortz declares, “No one has ever been able to show me how this whole thing about gay marriage is going to affect me, my life, the future of my family, my daughter, her husband, my grandbaby, it’s going to have no effect on [us].”

He then asks Jamie Dupree, “Do some other elements out there, Jamie, just revel in getting these issues in front of the people so that they just ignore the stuff that’s really important to them?” Dupree replies, “I don’t know [it’s] so they ignore the stuff. I do think that this is an important issue for some people on the right.” An indignant Boortz then asks, “On what basis?!”

Unable to well articulate the Christian conservative position on this grave issue, Dupree, sounding frustrated, weakly replies, “Look, that’s how they feel. Whether it’s right or wrong in your own mind isn’t the point, is it? It is an important issue for them.”

Boortz then gives the predictably moronic reply so often thrown out by liberals who rabidly support all things homosexual, and libertarians who seemingly just don’t want to exert the mental effort necessary to understand why redefining marriage (and other similar moral issues) is so important: “If they’re so opposed to it, then don’t marry somebody of their sex. Wow, problem solved.”

(Of course, this sounds a lot like the bumper sticker you see often in support of the “right” to kill children in the womb (a moral issue that Boortz is also infamously bad on): “Don’t like abortion? Then don’t have one.” Whenever someone tries this nonsense on you, reply with: “So according to your logic, ‘Don’t like slavery? Then don’t own one.’ is a valid argument to be made?”)

Dupree continues to display his ignorant simpleton thinking on the matter and replies, “Some things are a big deal for certain sections, certain groups of people, and not a big deal for others.” Boortz then presents a mocking hypothetical where the country is nearing economic collapse, and in his best hick voice concludes, “That may be so, but at least them gays can’t get married.”

This type of lame libertarian thinking on the moral issues is one of the biggest reasons why so many young people are deceived on marriage, abortion, and the like. Given all of his years on the radio and in print, I find it quite unbelievable that Boortz has never had a call, email, or a face-to-face that has given him the correct Christian conservative position on marriage, et al. Sad as it is, it seems that Boortz and his ilk regularly and intelligently need to be shown why redefining marriage is a disaster for the country—including and beyond the biblical reasons.

For example, libertarians like Boortz (rightly) despise the welfare state. Why despise it? After all, isn’t it simply a matter of “fairness” to take from those who have plenty (or just more) and give it to those who are poor (or to those who have less)? Don’t libertarians like Neal Boortz want to help those in need? Why is it “wrong” to empower the government in such a way?

Boortz has gone so far as to call (most of) the poor in America “perpetrators.” He adds that, “Barack Obama has placed more people on food stamps than any president in history. The goal here is not so much to take care of people who can’t afford their food, as it is to create a dependency society of loyal Democrat voters. These are people who have discovered that they can earn a living at the ballot box.” To illustrate this, Boortz provides a “factoid:” “In the great social welfare state being constructed by Democrats, a person can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as they can working [a] $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.” (Emphasis his.)

Boortz (again, rightly) fears for the country. To have tens-of-millions of Americans so dependent on government is an unsustainable financial disaster that will reap tragic benefits for most all of us, and may destroy the country as we know it. As Ben Franklin put it, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Boortz (again, rightly—libertarians do get much right) is implying that the welfare state gives millions upon millions of Americans, who are otherwise quite capable, an incentive to be lazy, and thus shields them from suffering the “right and just” (“If a man does not work, he shall not eat.”) consequences of their immoral actions—consequences that might well help them see the error of their ways and turn from their wickedness. In other words, Boortz is making a moral argument against the welfare state. (He also seems to understand well my proverb, “It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”)

And just when did the U.S. embark on this disaster? As the Heritage Foundation noted earlier this month, “Fifty-one years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. Since then, taxpayers have spent more than $22 trillion fighting Johnson’s war, three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history. Last year, taxpayers spent more than $920 billion on 80 different anti-poverty programs.”

What other national disaster began around the same time as, and has greatly contributed to the growth of, the welfare state? The sexual revolution, which of course, led to the collapse of the biblical family model in America. As the Heritage piece also notes, “A major reason for the nation’s lack of success for the last half century has been the collapse of marriage. Marriage is a powerful force in reducing poverty; a single mother with children is four times more likely to be poor than a similar mother who is married. More than two-thirds of all poor families with children in the U.S. are headed by single parents.”

Boortz seemingly understands the link to out-of-wedlock births and poverty when he gives his three steps for avoiding poverty: 1.) Stay in school 2.) Don’t get pregnant (Presumably he means outside of marriage. Gasp!—Again, sounds rather like a bit of “moralizing” on the part of Mr. Boortz!) 3.) When you get out of school, get a job. Any job. And keep that job until you can find one that pays better.

Of course, children need their biological parents to be, and to remain, married for reasons that extend far beyond those that are financial. How often must that which common sense (or at least it used to be common) and sound morality have always revealed be repeated to libertarian dolts like Boortz: children are meant to be raised by their mother and father! It is in the best interest of good government to encourage this, or to at least not undermine it. It has been pointed out ad nauseam the tragic consequences that often result when children grow up in a home without their mom and dad. What a disaster we are forcing on millions of unsuspecting and powerless children when our culture won’t recognize one of the longest standing truths in the history of humanity!

Are you understanding “the basis” for standing up for marriage now, Neal? (And please, don't try the "We shouldn't legislate morality" nonsense.)

What’s more, if the courts force same-sex marriage upon all of America, the terrible consequences will infect all of the U.S., as homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” will have the full force of the U.S. law behind it. This means that the lawsuits against small (or large) businesses (that are already bankrupting some) who refuse to participate in this perversion will be on the increase. In addition, churches, individuals, and organizations who speak out against this perversion will face “civil rights” penalties.

Perhaps worst of all, school children at every level all across the country will be taught that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and the perverse redefinition of marriage. Thus hundreds-of-millions of American children will grow up with an even more distorted view of what marriage and parenting are really all about.

Additionally, once the legal precedent for redefining marriage is set, the door is open for polyamorous marriage, incestuous marriage, and the like. If we are morally blind to homosexual "marriage," then we must be to the other perversions as well. Do you see now, Mr. Boortz, how this affects not only the future of your family, but the future of us all?

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Debating the "Undebatable"

Well, as Gomer Pyle (a fitting symbol for today's liberalism) would put it, "Surprise, surprise!" Scott Walker has (again) disappointed a member of the liberal media. Rest assured, it won't be the last time, especially if he runs for the GOP nomination for U.S. President. The trouble for liberals with Walker however, is that he has already taken many of their best punches. Democrats desperately dug deep on him in their vain attempts to unseat him as governor of Wisconsin.

Thus, we now have to hear about how important it is that the President of the United States needs to be a college graduate. It seems this is especially so the U.S. President can be well versed in Darwinian evolution.

In spite of Walker's lack of a college pedigree, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen thinks, hypothetically, he could have supported Walker for president, until last week that is. "If I were a Republican," Cohen declared yesterday, "I think I might have supported Scott Walker for president." Cohen goes on to compliment Walker's smile, tenacity, and his "adherence to principle." 

What did a Walker do last week that made Cohen's "faux conservative heart" sink? Mr. Walker balked when asked about evolution. According to Cohen, this makes the Wisconsin governor "either an ignoramus or a coward." (And only an "ignoramus or a coward" could defeat liberals 3 times in 4 years in the deep purple state of Wisconsin, right Mr. Cohen?) Because, of course, being.asked if one believes in evolution, "is precisely no different than asking whether one believes in the theory of gravity or general relativity."

Because, you see, "It is simply not possible to contest evolution, since it is the basis of all the biological sciences. The issue is closed, not-debatable...," adds Cohen. Ah yes, you know you've struck a nerve with liberals when you've tread upon that which is "not debatable." So we've gone beyond "the science is settled" to, "No matter what you or anyone else has to say, we're just not going to talk about that anymore."

Be it the "right" of a women to kill her unborn child, the new-found "right" to "marry" whomever one desires, the "right" to live as whatever gender one desires (no matter the plumbing God gave you), the notion that the earth is on a "slow boil" (Cohen's words--he must not live in the eastern U.S.), or Darwinian evolution, there seems to be an ever-increasing number of things liberals don't want to discuss, much less debate.

Yes, in liberal-land, the (supposed) billions of years of biology that describes the "how" (and I suppose the "why") of all living things is settled, but the biology of human anatomy and physiology, that we can see with our own eyes, is a mystery that we are still figuring out. In other words, though an individual might be born fully male, with all of the proper attachments, and lived as such for decades--even competing in the Olympics as such--if he suddenly decides he is a woman, and wants to mutilate his God-given body (and even have the taxpayers foot the bill!), this is not disease or madness, but bravery, and worthy of legal protection and every accommodation imaginable.

And as I must constantly remind those who think Darwinian evolution is "the basis (or "foundation") of all the biological sciences," just how is it that Louis Pasteur, a strong opponent of Darwin and his theory, operating from a strict biblical worldview, was able to become "the father of microbiology?" As I noted last year, "Pasteur, a microbiologist and chemist, who, along with giving us the process of pasteurization, disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (which put him at odds with Darwin and his work) and was a pioneer in the battle against infectious diseases (leading us to the process of vaccination).

"At times it seems that the (ridiculous) implication is that nothing in science can get done unless it is done from an evolutionary worldview. This is certainly the case in fields related to biology, but many Darwinian evolutionists would have us believe that everything from anesthesiology to zoology rests upon Darwinian evolution. Given that Darwin proposed his theory just over 150 years ago, it's a wonder anything at all was accomplished in science prior to 1850.

"Of course, much was. Generally considered the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton--inventor of calculus, and famous for his laws of motion and universal gravitation--was a devout Chrostian and performed his work from a biblical worldview. On gravitation he noted, that 'Gravity explains the motion of the planets, it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.'"

Additionally, Newton calculated the earth to be only a few thousand years old, and declared that, "For an educated man...any suggestion that the human past extended back further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation." But of course, this is much better than being an "ignoramus or a coward."

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, February 15, 2015

Answering the Evolution Question

I tried to warn them. In addition, back in 2012, after Marco Rubio was asked about the age of the earth, I provided conservative politicians (and others interested) a primer for answering some of the “gotcha” questions that most every conservative running for political office in the U.S. will inevitably face. It seems that Scott Walker or his staff need to spend more time on my website, or on American Thinker (one of the top conservative websites in America).

Byron York hopes Walker learned a valuable lesson. Silvio Canto at American Thinker doesn’t care what Scott Walker (or Hillary Clinton) thinks about evolution and wants to “pound on the guy asking these stupid questions.” Jonah Goldberg, like I did, correctly points out that, “the evolution question really isn’t about evolution at all,” and concludes that this incessant question “deserves to be cessant.”

As Goldberg puts it, on the surface, questions about evolution are really questions about the culture war (or, as I have alluded, the moral wars), and, beneath the surface, such questions are ultimately about the nature of man. And for liberalism to prosper, any notion of God or absolute truth to which man is ultimately accountable must at least be compromised, if not completely rejected.

This is why evolution—or, better put, Darwinian evolution (D.E.)—is deeply embedded in the foundation of liberalism. D.E. teaches that all life—plant, animal, human—billions of years ago sprang from the same single-celled source, strictly as a product of nature and natural processes (billions of years of death and struggle). Thus, as a liberal at Salon recently put it, “Darwin…explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God.” (His piece is gleefully entitled “God is on the Ropes,” and writes about the “brilliant new science”—isn’t it always—that expands on Darwin’s work and will finally liberate us from any idea that God was involved in creating life.)

Many, including those who call themselves Christians and/or conservatives, would like to ignore this tenet of D.E. Thus we now have the nonsense that is “theistic evolution.” This is nothing more than the sad attempt to reconcile God’s Word with what is perceived as the “settled science”—isn’t it always—on the beginning of life (that has misled the likes of even the Pope).

Even the rabid atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins understands the fallacy here. When asked recently what was the particular point at which he was able to conclude that God doesn’t exist, Dawkins replied that “by far” the most significant event for him was “understanding evolution.” He went on to say that he thought the evangelical Christians have it “sort-of” right when they see (Darwinian) evolution as “the enemy,” adding that there “really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.” The “sophisticated theologians” who are “quite happy to live with evolution” are, as Dawkins puts it, “deluded.” How sad that it takes an atheist to point out the truth in this debate!

Nevertheless, well-meaning Christians, especially those aspiring to win elections, will continue to seek compromise here. Scott Walker himself demonstrated this when, after his perceived attempt at “weaseling on evolution,” he later benignly tweeted, “I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.”

Politically speaking, I have no problem with Scott Walker “punting” on the question. (Right now, he’s my favorite potential GOP presidential candidate.) It’s no different than then presidential candidate Barack Obama’s “above my pay grade” response when he was asked about the beginning of human life. However, such a response by a conservative candidate is only likely to draw further such questions (whether on evolution, abortion, marriage, global warming, and the like). As I noted in 2012, it would have been better to turn the tables in such a way that would give left-wing reporters significant pause before again venturing down this path of questioning.

What’s more, again, as I noted in 2012, and as others have similarly pointed out in the last few days, Walker, or any other candidate, can use the approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a wise question of His own.

For example, first of all, when asked about evolution (i.e., as Walker was asked, “Do you believe in evolution?”), I would ask the reporter to clarify what she means by evolution (it’s highly unlikely that she will be able to do this articulately). If the reporter stumbles around and is unable to explain what she means by evolution, the candidate can reply: “If by evolution you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.”

Additionally, one could respond with (as James Taranto alluded to), “Why must one ‘believe in’ evolution?” I suppose it’s for the same reason that one must “believe in” man-made global warming: the science doesn’t really reveal what liberals want it to reveal.

If the reporter gives some silly response that, by evolution, he means that “things change over long periods of time” (i.e. “natural selection”), then the proper reply would be: “Of course I ‘believe in’ natural selection. But if by natural selection you mean the idea that all living things, such as humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor and are nothing more than the result of natural processes, and leave no role for a Creator, then no.” (What’s more, the VAST majority of Americans allow God at least some special role in creation.) In other words, natural selection is not synonymous with Darwinian evolution.

One could also do as Marco Rubio hinted at in 2012 and ask, “What does D.E. have to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States?” If a candidate really wanted to get cute, he could ask, “Why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and millions/billions of years (as did Newton and Kepler, who both actually took the time to calculate the age of the earth and found it to be only a few thousand years old), and still operate perfectly well in any scientific field including medicine (i.e. Pasteur)?”

Conservative candidates are never going to get the slack that liberals do when it comes to anything related to the moral issues. The liberals in the media are too personally invested in having those that share their (mostly) godless worldview win elections. Thus, any serious conservative candidate for higher office better spend some time thinking about how to answer such questions.

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

Thursday, February 12, 2015

"Everywhere I Go I See You"

As the brutality of those who hate Christians and Christianity continues to make news, my recent prayer life has increasingly focused on those who are truly suffering for Christ. (Such suffering is almost completely unknown in the U.S.) When Michelle and I say bedtime prayers with our four children, we often pray for those who live in places "where it's dangerous to follow Jesus."

Praying in this way has made me think more about what my walk with Christ would be like if my life and limbs were in danger. More than once lately I've tried to place myself in the shoes of those who are losing their homes, properties, churches, and lives simply because they follow Jesus. Where is one's joy when you've lost, or face losing, everything you posses in this world?

I recently linked to this on my website, reporting on the death of  26-year-old American aid worker Kayla Mueller at the hands of ISIS. She had been held hostage by ISIS since August of 2013. Most of us are aware of the kinds of evil wrought by the Islamic radicals of ISIS. Their barbarism seems to know no bounds. Yet, in the face of this, her parents recently talked of how Kayla's "deep Christian faith gave her comfort during her captivity."

In a letter her parents received in the spring of 2014, Kayla wrote: "I remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is God. I have come to a place in experience where, in every sense of the word, I have surrendered myself to our creator b/c literally there was no else ... + by God + by your prayers I have felt tenderly cradled in freefall."

"The only one you really have is God." In other words, God is the only One who is forever faithful. No matter where we may find ourselves, if we look and listen, He is there.

That brings to mind one of my favorite songs. Enjoy:

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, February 10, 2015

Obama: King of the Nerds

How many nerds does it take to prop up a fledgling regime? Answer: I don't know, but the geniuses at Vox probably have the answer. This is especially the case since they've had so much practice with the Obama administration.

In case you haven't heard, Vox and Obama are really impressed with one another. Vox recently had a "conversation" with President Obama on "his theory of America's political and policy problems as it stands at the beginning of the seventh year of his presidency." At some point during the interview, Obama flatters Vox's Ezra Klein with the conclusion, "You guys are, I guess, for the brainiac-nerd types."

Of course, what better setting is there than Vox for the smartest man ever to be President of the United States?

During the foreign policy portion of the interview, Obama revealed his vast intelligence by concluding the obvious: "We don't have military solutions to every problem in the 21st century." After such a discerning statement, Vox's Matthew Yglesias, who conducted the foreign policy part of interview, was so impressed that he later tweeted: "A simple, but profound and important insight from the president."

Also, in case you haven't heard, the mission at Vox is to "Explain the News." Because, of course, it takes a special kind of genius to make the obvious seem so "profound," and to "explain" to all of us dumb yokels what is really going on in the world around us. Then again, for Yglesias, it's best that he stick with the obvious, because when he deviates from it, he tends to get himself into trouble.

I suppose this means that Brian Williams will be headed to Vox after he shamelessly (yes, shamelessly) departs NBC. This way he can better "explain" to us what really happened in that helicopter over Iraq in 2003.

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, February 3, 2015

Happily Divorced?

I saw the car in the photo below a few nights ago at a local fast-food restaurant. As tragic and as devastating as same-sex "marriage" is on our culture, the sad consequences of such a marriage perversion pales in comparison to what decades of divorce and sexual promiscuity has given us. I've given the sad sorry statistics many times myself: well over 40% of children born in the U.S. today are born out-of-wedlock.

Combine this with the number of children whose parents ended their marriage, and the number of children who are living in a home with both of their biological parents who are married, is shockingly low. According to recent data from Pew, only 46% of U.S. kids are "living in a home with two married heterosexual parents in their first marriage."

Of course, I realize that many divorces today are necessary and justified, but I suspect that the vast majority are not. More than one generation of American children has had their childhood sacrificed on the altar of their parents' "happiness," lust, greed, pride, or some combination of such. With divorce (and other sexually related sins) as rampant as it now is, I suppose I should not be surprised at the declaration below. Change our hearts oh God!!!

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

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Richard Sherman, Be There For Your Son: Marry His Mom

I don’t like the two weeks between the end of the NFL conference championship games and the Super Bowl. Two weeks is far too long for today’s sports media to keep my attention while talking about only two teams. In this case, it’s two teams about which I couldn’t care less. If only they both could lose.

Given this much time to cover one sporting event, the media coverage frequently devolves into witless trivial minutia about things like who can make the best crude joke while talking about deflated footballs, or what line will Marshawn Lynch next use when he doesn’t talk to the media. Nevertheless, during this football purgatory, while driving, I still surf by the sports talk programs on the radio.

It seems that the impending birth of the Seattle Seahawks’ 26-year-old super-star defensive back, Richard Sherman’s, first child has become a hot topic, even with the lame-stream media. No, the liberals that dominate both the sports media and the lame-stream media haven’t suddenly discovered a special affinity for the unborn. They’re enamored with the possible dilemma that Sherman could face if the mother of his son goes into labor on Super Bowl Sunday.

If the child decides to enter the world on the day of the biggest sporting event in America, should Sherman be there for the birth of his first child, or should he play in the Super Bowl? Sherman isn’t saying what he would do, and thus the media becomes even more enamored, and the story goes on.

The Washington Post concludes, “For many readers, this will probably seem like a no-brainer: You go and be by the new mother’s side. In Sherman’s case, he already played in, and won, a Super Bowl just last year, so shouldn’t the birth of his first child take precedence?” The Post even provides a poll and asks their readers to weigh in. In other words, the media is implying and even encouraging the notion that Sherman should “be there for his wife girlfriend and son.”

What is virtually ignored by the media is the fact that Sherman and the mother of his child, Ashley Moss, are not married. And why shouldn’t it be ignored? As has been pointed out ad-nauseam, children born out of wedlock in this country are now, tragically, quite the norm. Moss is described as Sherman’s “girlfriend” in every article on the matter, with no mention (that I could find) of this being any problem at all.

Of course, with its pervasive support of the “right” to kill children in the womb at virtually any stage of pregnancy, the perverse redefinition of marriage, sexual immorality of every sort imaginable, and a massive welfare state, it is little surprise that the liberal-dominated media would not spill one drop of ink lamenting the relationship status of Sherman and Moss.

Remember how much ink was spilled last year over the Ray Rice fiasco? Even in that terrible situation, where there were calls for Roger Goodell to resign as commissioner, and there was widespread talk of a domestic violence problem in the NFL (which was completely debunked, but nevertheless has spawned a Super Bowl ad on the matter), the liberal media could not bring itself to discuss the virtues of marriage. And, for the most part, they totally ignored the fact that after their terrible scene at a New Jersey casino, Rice and his then fiancée, Janay Palmer, married and became born-again Christians.

During one of the media days leading up to the Super Bowl, Sherman discussed how the impending birth of his son is giving him extra motivation to do well on the field. “It's someone that actually depends on you for everyday living,” Sherman said. “Everything they do is dependent on you and how you provide and how successful you are. As a parent, you want to set a great example for them, so I guess, to a degree, a lot of things are riding on it.”

At least Sherman’s Stanford education has allowed him to state the obvious. Yes, your children are dependent on you in nearly every way (which is especially the case in the womb—a fact that, despite their intellectual claims, has escaped most liberals). And yes, we need to work hard to provide for them (how “capitalist” of Sherman!). But that is FAR from all that is necessary for proper child rearing.

The absolute best thing Sherman and Moss can do for their child is to marry, be a loving and committed couple, and remain such throughout their lives. No amount of money can ever buy or replace the effect of such a relationship. Again, after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is that between husband and wife.

Sherman need look no further than his teammate Marshawn Lynch for evidence of this. Lynch, the surly Seattle running back, grew up on the mean and dangerous streets of Oakland, California, raised only by his single mother, Delisa. As Larry Elder recently noted, when asked why he finds it difficult to “trust” people, Lynch recalls his absent father. Lynch said that, his mother would take him to his dad’s house, “And when I get there, my dad like, ‘Oh, OK, I be right back,’ and then you don't see this guy for like, two days or something. And then after a while you, like, sh--, you build up numb feelings to that. So you start to expect the worst out of people.”

In spite of the deliberate ignorance, or downright deceit, of those on the left, there is nothing more important for the health and well-being of a child than the health and the well-being of the relationship that exists with the child’s mom and dad. So, to Mr. Sherman I say, if you want to “be there for your son,” marry, love, and remain married and faithful “until death do you part” to your son’s mother.

(See a version of this on American Thinker's blog.)

Update: Just to clarify, married or not, if Moss goes into labor on Sunday, if I were Sherman, I would be suited up and on the field. 

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 25, 2015

The Truth is Always "Offensive"

When Jesus stood before Pilate, just prior to going to His execution, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” After some discussion, Pilate concluded, “You are a king, then!” Jesus replied, “You are right in saying that I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Sounding much like a modern-day graduate of Harvard’s divinity school, or the Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University (who both probably have about the same regard for Christ as did Pilate), Pilate concluded his exchange with Jesus by asking, “What is truth?” And just as one would expect from someone so blind to the truth, Pilate and the crowd sent the most innocent man the world has ever known to his excruciating death.

When His disciple Thomas asked, “how can we know the way?” Jesus answered him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The clearest picture and purveyor of truth in the history of the universe is Jesus Christ. Thus, those who stand opposed to Him often go to great lengths in their attempts to silence His message and His messengers. Whether the arenas of Rome, the pitch-soaked flaming pyres throughout Europe, the savage altars of the Aztecs and Iroquois, the brutal prisons in communist China, Russia and North Korea, or the Islamic swords and machine-guns in the Middle East and Africa, for two millennia, millions of Christians have suffered, many “even unto death,” for their faith in Jesus and His message.

Apologist Greg Koukl, writing about the martyrdom of Polycarp, a second century disciple of the Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, sums up well how so many Christians have been able to happily endure their persecution. Koukl asks, “How could Polycarp go to his redemption with eagerness?” The answer: “Because he understood the truth. And the truth changed everything.”

Indeed, in spite of the vain yammerings of Barack Obama and his liberal lackeys, the only way to bring real, lasting, and positive change to individuals or a culture is with the power of Christ. This is a truth—The Truth—that many, in spite of how they paint themselves, simply cannot “tolerate.”

If unbelieving liberals, Islamists, et al, understand anything, they understand this: their way and The Way are in direct opposition. In spite of the foolish attempts of some who call themselves Christians, there is no reconciling the way of the Cross with that of Muhammad, Buddha, liberalism, secularism, or any other religion contrived by man. This is precisely why those deceived find Jesus so “offensive.”

As a man who has found the cure for a terrible disease, true followers of Christ tell the truth with courage, conviction, and love. They minister to the sick, poor, hungry, and broken. They build churches, schools, hospitals, and orphanages. In order to further engage the world and spread the truth, Christians are involved in politics, science, industry, education, entertainment, and even the military. They also peacefully, but strongly, stand up to the lies of liberalism, Islam, and the like. This is precisely why such Christians are found to be so “offensive.”

Opponents of the truth (whose side we were all on at one time or another) find themselves in what C.S. Lewis describes as a “terrible fix.” They have made themselves enemies of the one thing which they cannot stand to be with, which is also the one thing which they cannot really do without. As Lewis puts it, the Author of truth “is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.”

Those who remain His enemies are as numerous, devoted, and angry now as they have ever been. Militant Islamists, communists, humanists, atheists, and so on, are waging a vengeful war against all things Christian. The global persecution of Christians is at historic levels. As Christians (along with others) are being killed or jailed in the eastern world, their property and their careers are being threatened in the west.

I often thank God that I don’t live in a part of the world where it’s dangerous (meaning that your life is threatened) to be a Christian. However, just as Islam for centuries has known the “danger” that Christianity presents to followers of Muhammad, how long before those committed to the Godless humanist/secularist worldview in the west decide that lawsuits and other such legal actions against the “offensive” are simply not enough? After all, they’ve had plenty of practice killing the most vulnerable among us—those in the womb.

It’s not as if Jesus and His Apostles failed to warn us. Jesus said that because of Him, we would be hated. The “City of God” will always be despised by “The City of Man.” Nevertheless, Paul teaches us to bless those who persecute us and never to “repay anyone evil with evil.”

Jesus also told us never to fear those who can only “kill the body and after that can do no more.” As the beheadings, massacres, kidnappings, and rapes continue in the Middle East and Africa, as the forced abortions continue in China, as the faithful continue to endure imprisonment and execution in North Korea, and as Europe and North America continue to seek to destroy the biblical family model through the promotion of abortion, homosexuality, marriage perversions, and the welfare state, may we never forget that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

“Truth is incontrovertible,” wrote Winston Churchill. “Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.” And it will be there for all time and beyond time. In spite of all our efforts, we will all ultimately answer to the truth—better to do so in this world than the next.

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

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

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