Sunday, August 31, 2014

Why Mark Richt is Better than Nick Saban, Les Miles, and Steve Spurrier

I know it was only the first weekend of the 2014 college football season, but there was one distinct and noticeable difference among the coaches of several of the best teams in the best conference in college football. This difference, I believe, sets the University of Georgia's head coach Mark Richt apart from his excellent counterparts at Alabama, LSU, and South Carolina.

In many sports, sometimes it is the intangible things that make the difference. This is certainly true in college football. This distinctive difference just might be the reason that Georgia goes all the way this year. The photos below clearly reveal what I'm talking about:

                                     

As you can clearly see, unlike Nick Saban, Les Miles, and Steve Spurrier, Georgia's head coach Mark Richt does not color his hair. Richt is easily the youngest of these deans of the SEC. Saban is 62, Miles is 60, and those chestnut colored locks of Steve Spurrier are 69. Mark Richt is only 54 and has more gray than the other three combined!

Each of these men has made tens-of-millions of dollars coaching football and certainly can afford to do whatever they want with their hair. However, what kind of message does it send to young men playing the most physical sport in America that, once one starts experiencing a little adversity with one's manly mane, that it's time to go the way of Donald Trump?!

Who knows, maybe Richt's natural-do was the reason Georgia backs ran so hard against Clemson. However, there is one thing that the three other coaches have that Mark Richt is still chasing: a national championship. Now I don't know if the coloring preceded the championships or not, but I suppose us die-hard UGA fans now face a bit of a dilemma: do we want our "au naturale" head coach to go the way of these divas if it means a national championship? 

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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Forget the Facts in Ferguson--Libs Want an Indictment

The liberal media is already laying the groundwork for the next round of riots in Ferguson, Missouri, now that a grand jury has been convened. The game is to continue to perpetuate racial conflict in America, write stories, organize protests, and remind Americans why they need to vote for Democrats. But since the grand jury in Ferguson consists of nine whites and three blacks, many liberals have decided that true justice can’t possibly be served.

Case in point would be the recent musings of progressive commentator Sally Kohn. Her recent piece in the Daily Beast concludes that, given the racial make-up of the Ferguson grand jury, an “obvious question” has been raised: “Can whites empathize with Michael Brown and the larger grievances Ferguson’s black community has with police?” Because, you know, when weighing whether to change a man with murder, it’s always important that grand juries “empathize” with the community at large. After all, isn’t the word “empathy” prominently featured in the Fifth Amendment?

Given such progressive nonsense when it comes to our legal system, it’s no wonder that Texas liberals were able to indict Rick Perry. Such thinking is pervasive and long-standing with liberals when comes to the U.S. legal system. It’s one of the reasons why federal courts are falling all over themselves to legalize same-sex marriage. Since more Americans than ever are “empathetic” towards homosexuality, it’s only just that our courts find “rights” for homosexuals that have eluded us for well over 200 years.

Kohn also asks: “[C]an America more broadly value the experiences and concerns of black America enough to address them rather than dismiss them?” In other words, forget the facts; forget what grand juries are supposed to do; the Ferguson grand jury better indict or what we just witnessed in the St. Louis suburb will look like a bad weekend at Freaknik.

(See this post 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 tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, August 18, 2014

America: I Wish She Were "Hot or Cold"

I live in the northeast Georgia area. I’ve spoken often—to God and man—of how blessed and thankful I am to have been born in the greatest nation the world has ever known. Not only that, but I’ve also been extremely blessed to have grown up in one of the most conservative and one of the most Christ-influenced areas in the United States.

My political district is the Georgia ninth. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, Georgia’s ninth is currently the third most republican district in the U.S. Yes, republican doesn’t always imply conservative (and certainly doesn’t imply Christian), but of course, conservative—especially conservative Christian—almost always equals strongly republican. Thus, whatever political madness America must endure, I can usually take solace in the fact that my area of the country will be somewhat shielded from the fallout. Thank God and the Founders for the vertical separation of powers!

Of course, such “political madness” is especially prevalent when the realms of politics and faith collide. A recent case in point involves a public high school, Chestatee High School (CHS) in Hall County Georgia, which is about 15 minutes from my home. Along with writing and maintaining a website, I currently teach mathematics at another high school within the same district. Thus I became very curious when my lovely wife approached me the evening of August 12 with the news of the spiritual and potential legal conflict that was brewing at CHS.

Just after we got our four children to bed, Michelle informed me that Hall County School district, due to prayers and references to Scripture involving the football program at CHS, was under threat of a lawsuit by the American Humanist Association. My reply: “Good!”

As lawsuit after lawsuit results in courts across America tossing out the marriage amendments passed (usually overwhelmingly) by dozens of states; as nudists seek to exercise their “right” to be naked; as San Francisco politicians export their home-grown perversions (warning: graphic) to other parts of the country; as corporation after corporation pays homage to the (tiny) homosexual community; as self-identifying “Christians” kill unborn children “in the name of Jesus;” as so-called “evangelical” pastors “come out” in support of homosexuality; more and more Americans, whether they like it or not, are being forced to make difficult moral decisions. In other words, many Americans, who would prefer to remain on the sidelines as we continue to debate the moral issues in America, are being forced to declare with whom they stand.

As Screwtape cautioned Wormwood, just as warfare with bullets and bombs renders one of the best weapons of Satan (“contented worldliness”) useless, the mounting moral conflicts in America are pushing many of us out of a contented and willful ignorance and complacence and into a place that the enemy of all mankind really doesn’t want us to go: a place where we are forced to confront the social, political, and spiritual consequences of our beliefs and behaviors; a place where we also must examine why we believe what we believe—and, determine if what we believe is really the truth.

This is why I say….let’s have it out. As I noted on the Redskins nonsense, let’s debate the morality and the justness of all these matters. Let us each loudly and clearly cast our moral standards before the American people, the courts, and most importantly, the Creator and see where we stand. This is certainly not to imply that, at least when it comes to the American people and the courts, such a confrontation will produce results that you or I will like. However, as Christ warned the Church at Laodicea, let us not be “lukewarm!”

If America is to stem her descent into a spiritual and moral winter, then Christians across the country must do their best to ignite fires of faith in their families, churches, communities, schools, places of work, and so on, and be the light we are called to be. We do not need Christians who see compromise (with Scripture) as the way forward. Neither do we need Christian monasteries or compounds where biblical values and truths are hoarded and hidden from our nation.

What we need are communities full of faithful families led by fathers and mothers who want to work hard, raise children, attend church, and pass on their biblical values to the next generation, and the next, and so on. As Psalm 78 implores the rebellious nation of Israel: fathers teach your children, so that they will in turn teach their children—so it should be with every nation that wants to walk in the truth.

Such communities need to be “cities on a hill,” welcoming all those who want to join, so that the American people can clearly contrast the ways of those who are “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” with those who seek to live the “godly life in Christ Jesus.” Thus Americans can clearly choose whether to be part of, as Augustine put it, the “City of God” or the “City of Man.”

And we need more communities to react like the Hall County community did once word of the lawsuit became public knowledge. On Friday, August 15, The Gainesville Times reported that after the Hall County School system received the threat from the atheist group, “at least three prayer events were organized on school (CHS) grounds.” In addition, a Facebook page—to facilitate and encourage the prayer groups—was started that received over 11,000 “likes” in just over a day. Other high schools in Hall County, including my own, Johnson High, joined the prayer movement.

Perhaps most encouraging, as Todd Starnes noted in his piece on the issue, was the response of Hall County School superintendent Will Schofield. “Unfortunately when school systems get letters like this and people start rattling sabers, usually the first reaction by a lot of school districts is, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t want to be in the news. We don’t want to be sued, so we better stop doing whatever we are doing,’” Schofield said. He added, “I don’t think that will be the first reaction of the Hall County School Board.”

Such should be the reaction, not only on matters concerning public expressions of faith, but on the definition of marriage, on abortion, on sexual perversions, on the breakdown of the family, on postings of the Ten Commandments, and on each and every moral issue that we face. In other words, America is in the midst of a battle for her soul and it’s time that more Christians started acting like it.

See this column on American Thinker.

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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, August 17, 2014

Ferguson, MO: More Tragic Fruit of Liberalism

After a day of calm, upon the release of the surveillance video that purportedly shows Michael Brown, the young man whose death sparked the violence in Ferguson, MO, robbing a convenience store, the protests and looting erupted again. According to St Louis news reports, as the looting occurred, "police dressed in riot gear mainly stood and watched, apparently under orders not to engage."

The Obama justice department did not want the video released, because, you know, when more facts and information to a crime become available, that's always a reason for more looting and violence. Missouri's Democratic governor, Jay Nixon, has now announced a curfew in Ferguson. Many feared that a curfew would just spark more confrontations with law enforcement.

But not to worry, Captain Ronald Johnson, the state Highway Patrol officer now in charge of Ferguson security, is going to treat curfew breakers like they are now treating looters. "We won’t enforce it with trucks, we won’t enforce it with tear gas, we will enforce it with communication," Captain Johnson said. "We will be telling people, 'It’s time to go home.'" After all, a good talking to is what those breaking the law in Ferguson have needed all along.

Patricia Bynes, a black Democratic committeewoman for Ferguson Township, on Saturday said, "I don’t know what the answer is, but there has to be [some] type of response because it’s only getting worse out there. People are fed up with police brutality and police harassment. There is still so much racism and discrimination in this region, ingrained in the business world and the communities. This is what happens when institutional racism continues." Imagine that!--A Democrat excusing criminal behavior with cries of "racism!" Of course, she is not alone. I won't bother you with links to prove such--just search the internet for "Ferguson and racism" and see for yourself.

We keep hearing about how, though Ferguson is about 70% black, only one out of seven city council members are black. Of course, we are supposed to believe that this is due to racism. Perhaps it's because the Democratic machine has yet to sufficiently corrupt the Ferguson election process. I wonder how the Ferguson vote went on the last two presidential elections. Wanna bet? St. Louis County (which does not contain the city of St. Louis), which contains Ferguson, was one of only three Missouri counties to go for Obama in the 2012 presidential election. 

The fact is that 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. As I noted in April of this year, the political machine in most every large U.S. city is dominated by democrats. As Kevin Williamson of National Review pointed out a couple of days ago, "Ferguson was hardly a happy suburban garden spot [before] the shooting of Michael Brown."

Williamson also points out that 40% of the births in St. Louis County are out of wedlock. What do you think Michael Brown's home life was like? News reports identify his mother as Lesley McSpadden and his father as Michael Brown, Sr. Doesn't quite sound like a happily married couple does it?

As I noted, the unbridled liberalism present in many U.S. cities has been complicit in the destruction of the families in these cities. Not only that, as I've also noted, such liberalism has bred crime, violence, dependence, and poverty. 

Williamson adds, "The more progressive the city, the worse a place it is to be poor and/or black. The most pronounced economic inequality in the United States is not in some Republican redoubt in Texas but in San Francisco, an extraordinarily expensive city in which half of all black households make do with less than $25,000 a year. Blacks in San Francisco are arrested on drug felonies at ten times their share of the general population. At 6 percent of the population, they represent 40 percent of those arrested for homicides."

In other words, whether its the violence in Ferguson or drugs in San Francisco, liberals are reaping what they have sown. The sooner the citizens of such places realize this, the better off we will all be.

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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Saturday, August 9, 2014

America's First "Great Awakening" (Another [unedited] excerpt from our next book)

Right in between the colonial and Revolutionary period of America came what historians have dubbed the (first) “Great Awakening.” One of the principle figures of this period of spiritual revival was the brilliant and pious Puritan minister Jonathan Edwards. Born in 1703—the same year as John Wesley—to the Reverend Timothy and Esther Edwards, Jonathan showed signs of an unusually keen mind early on. He entered Yale just before he turned 13. He began his ministry at 23 alongside his maternal grandfather in Northampton, Massachusetts.

Edwards was literally born into Christian ministry. As was noted, his father was a minister, a Congregationalist to be precise. Edwards’ mother, Esther Stoddard Edwards, was the daughter of renowned Massachusetts minister Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard succeeded Eleazer Mather as pastor of the Congregationalist Church in Northampton, MA. He was a firebrand of a preacher who abhorred alcohol and extravagance. Though his theology was in conflict with many contemporary Puritan leaders, Stoddard was an extremely influential religious leader in the New England area for several decades.

Jonathan Edwards succeeded his grandfather as pastor of the church at Northampton. He would later repudiate some of his grandfather’s theological views. This cost him his pulpit as he was dismissed from the Northampton church in 1750. After this, Edwards accepted a role as pastor of a church in Stockbridge, MA. During this period Edwards was a missionary to the local Native American tribes.

Edwards was a vociferous writer as well and is recognized as one of the great intellectuals of his time. He produced such works as Freedom of the Will, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, and The Life of David Brainerd which inspired countless missionaries of the nineteenth century. In 1758 Edwards became the president on the College of New Jersey (Princeton). He died weeks later from a smallpox inoculation. Edwards was the grandfather of Aaron Burr, third Vice President of the United States.

Jonathan Edwards loved the pulpit, and according to BJU Press, was more teacher and preacher than pastor. In late 1734 and early 1735, revival broke out in Northampton. By the Summer of 1735, it ended, but the seeds for something more lasting were planted. Enter the mighty George Whitefield.

Whitefield is generally considered the “Father of the Great Awakening.” Born in England, in 1714, Whitefield was an unruly child. He described himself as, “So brutish as to hate instruction and used purposely to shun all opportunities of receiving it. I soon gave pregnant proofs of an impudent temper. Lying, filthy talking, and foolish jesting, I was much addicted to, even when very young. Sometimes I used to curse, if not swear. Stealing from my mother I thought no theft at all, and used to make no scruple of taking money out of her pockets before she was up. I have frequently betrayed my trust, and have more than once spent money I took in the house in buying fruit, tarts, &c., to satisfy my sensual appetite. Numbers of Sabbaths have I broken, and generally used to behave myself very irreverently in God's sanctuary. Much money have I spent in plays, and in the common amusements of the age. Cards and reading romances were my heart's delight.”

Whitefield entered Pembroke College at Oxford at age 17. There he joined a group called the “Holy Club,” where he befriended John and Charles Wesley. John Wesley led the group, and as a result of their “methodical” ways, critics took to calling them “Methodists.” Of course, the name stuck.

Upon graduating and receiving his BA, Whitefield was ordained at 22. He began his preaching in the British towns of Bath, Bristol, and Gloucester. However, he felt the call to join General Oglethorpe’s colony in Georgia. In 1738 Whitefield left for North America. Not long after arriving in Georgia, noting the hard conditions, high death rate, and an abundance of children who had lost their parents, he conceived the idea of an orphanage.

For the rest of his life, Whitefield raised money for the orphanage. He also continued to preach. Whitefield’s message was one of salvation. This differed a bit from other Anglicans ministers at the time who emphasized religiosity and moral living. It was not long before most all of Georgia had heard of this young preacher with the booming voice and wild pulpit antics. News of Whitefield and his preaching soon spread throughout the colonies.

In 1739, after a brief return to England in hopes of securing land and funding for the orphanage in Georgia, Whitefield came back to America and would preach throughout the colonies. Jonathan Edwards invited Whitefield to preach in Northampton (Massachusetts). Whitefield’s message resonated with rich and poor, farmers and tradesmen, church-goers and sinners—virtually everyone within earshot of Whitefield (which, according to Ben Franklin, in open space, was 30,000 people!).

Whitefield was not alone. Along with Edwards, men like Isaac Backus, David Brainerd, Samuel Davies, Theodore Frelinghuysen, Jonathan Mayhew, Shubal Stearns, the Tennent brothers (Gilbert, John, William), and others implored Settlers and Indians alike to trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation. Their message of repentance caught fire up and down the American East Coast. In the words of Brainerd, the ongoing revival was like an “irresistible force of a mighty torrent or swelling deluge.”

The fire of revival can spawn change that is felt world-wide. This was certainly the case with the first Great Awakening, for it was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sewn.

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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Some Inconvenient (and Uncomfortable) Truths on Homosexuality

Earlier this year, as Ezra Klein’s Vox.com was launched, when describing why another news and politics site was necessary, Klein remarked that Vox would be “as good at explaining the world as it is at reporting on it.” It seems that is not the case when it comes to homosexuality.

Recently Vox reported on a new study from the Centers for Disease Control which revealed that from 2001 to 2011, annual diagnoses of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM)—in the 13 to 24 age group—increased 132.5%. This is a much larger increase than the one among older homosexuals, and enormous compared to the nearly 33% drop in HIV diagnoses among the general population.

Even more striking, and left out of the Vox report, is the fact that, though male homosexuals are only about 2% of the U.S. population, they account for over half (56%) of all HIV infections in the U.S. In 2011, homosexual men accounted for 79% of new HIV infections among men. Male homosexuals are 60 times more likely to contract HIV than other men. A 2008 study showed that 1 in 5 gay men in the U.S. has HIV.

The World Health Organization, which Vox also "conveniently" ignored, is so concerned about the “exploding epidemic” of HIV that it recently recommended that all homosexual men consider antiretroviral medications “to help prevent HIV infection.” However, even more likely to contract HIV than gay men are “transgender women” (who are, of course, biologically male). They are 50 times more likely to be infected than the general population and are among the most at-risk groups to contract HIV.

And it’s not just HIV. In May of this year WebMD reported that, “Syphilis has returned with a vengeance to the gay community.” According to the CDC, among homosexual men, cases of syphilis have more than doubled since the year 2000. The CDC also revealed that, in 2008 “men who have sex with men” accounted for 63% of all new syphilis cases.

Additionally, the CDC reports that homosexuals are 15 times more likely than the general population to get Hepatitis B and 17 times more likely to get anal cancer.

Speaking of the anal region, homosexual men who are on the “receiving end” of a penis (using their anus like a vagina), are over 17 times more likely to contract HIV than women who engage in sexual activity as it was meant to be. Although Vox referenced this, even including a graphic, they left out other important information. Such as the fact that the vast majority of gay men, 75% according to author Steven Gregory Underwood, engage in anal sex.  One researcher referred to it as the “sine qua non of sex for many gay men.”

Yet, as the previous link points out, and as Vox again leaves out, “human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an ‘exit-only’ passage.”

Anal intercourse, as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, author of Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, points out, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. “These tissues are meant to accommodate the relatively soft fecal mass…and are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissues. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream.”

Vox also reports that “compared to young men who have sex with women, those who have sex with men are nearly 10 times as likely to have ever injected illegal drugs.” In 2007 the Los Angeles Times reported the frequency of methamphetamine use is 20 times greater among MSM than in the general population.

Such information, though graphic and uncomfortable even to read, is very necessary and should be widely discussed given where we are in this nation when it comes to homosexuality. With same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and transgenderism being hailed as normal— even the American Psychological Association deceptively declares that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality”— and is now welcomed and celebrated by politicians and pundits, courts and corporations, Hollywood and high schools alike, more than ever the American public is in dire need of “the whole truth” on these matters.

The truth is that homosexual behavior, especially male homosexual behavior, is very dangerous and unhealthy. And it is certainly not something that governments or organizations of any type should promote. Those dealing with homosexual desires deserve understanding and compassion, but they also deserve the truth.

However, as Vox again demonstrates, the liberal media will never present the whole truth on homosexuality. (Sadly, we can’t even trust many churches on homosexuality!) If you do happen to report the facts on this matter, you are at least accused of perpetuating “false stereotypes” of homosexuals, or, at worst, labeled a bigot and a homophobe in need of being “stamped out...ruthlessly.” For the sake of our nation, more people better start telling the truth.

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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Liberals and "the least of these"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column on American Thinker.)

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

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Our Financial Story on Life Focus TV

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

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


Thursday, July 3, 2014

Liberal Lies Follow the Hobby Lobby Ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column on American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Hobby Lobby: We’re Teetering on the Edge

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

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

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

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

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

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