Saturday, September 27, 2014

Black on Black Genocide in America

It is well known by most (despite the mainstream media largely ignoring the matter) the dangers that young black males face from other young black males in America. Of course, as is often noted, this is directly related to the breakdown of the black family. Less known, but even more tragic is the devastation that abortion has brought to the black family.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. Since 1973, abortion has accounted for more deaths (about 13 million) among blacks than all other causes combined--FAR more. The patriarch of the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, is notorious for targeting minorities, especially blacks. According to recent research, "79% of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of African American and/or Hispanic/Latino communities."

Just as when a young fatherless black gang-banger guns down one of his black peers, blacks--especially those in Washington D.C.--who are enabling and even encouraging the abortion industry are complicit in the slaughter of young black children. Only, those killing young blacks in the womb are doing it at a rate about 40 times greater than their thug-partners that operate on the streets and in dark alleys. Some call this genocide.

Today the Congressional Black Caucus proudly held an event with Planned Parenthood. The event was sponsored by Black Entertainment Television Networks. For decades now leadership in the black community, with its unapologetic collaboration with modern-day liberalism, has sold-out the black family. In addition to literally killing the black family, this has resulted in a dependency upon others--especially government--that is unrivaled in America.

In other words, there's a new plantation operating in America, and it's run by the Democratic Party.

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

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Again: More Tragedy Wrought by Same-Sex Marriage

In case you missed this (because you didn't go to one of the all important links that I place above :)), the heart-breaking story of Janna Darnelle and her children:

In the fall of 2007, my husband of almost ten years told me that he was gay and that he wanted a divorce. In an instant, the world that I had known and loved—the life we had built together—was shattered.

I tried to convince him to stay, to stick it out and fight to save our marriage. But my voice, my desires, my needs—and those of our two young children—no longer mattered to him. We had become disposable, because he had embraced one tiny word that had become his entire identity. Being gay trumped commitment, vows, responsibility, faith, fatherhood, marriage, friendships, and community. All of this was thrown away for the sake of his new identity.

Try as I might to save our marriage, there was no stopping my husband. Our divorce was not settled in mediation or with lawyers. No, it went all the way to trial. My husband wanted primary custody of our children. His entire case can be summed up in one sentence: “I am gay, and I deserve my rights.” It worked: the judge gave him practically everything he wanted. At one point, he even told my husband, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”


Janna continues:

My ex-husband and his partner went on to marry. Their first ceremony took place before our state redefined marriage. After it created same-sex marriage, they chose to have a repeat performance. In both cases, my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate. At the second ceremony, which included more than twenty couples, local news stations and papers were there to document the first gay weddings officiated in our state. USA Today did a photo journal shoot on my ex and his partner, my children, and even the grandparents. I was not notified that this was taking place, nor was I given a voice to object to our children being used as props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.

At the time of the first ceremony, the marriage was not recognized by our state, our nation, or our church. And my ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship. This sends a clear message to our children: what you feel trumps all laws, promises, and higher authorities. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want—and it doesn’t matter who you hurt along the way.


Janna gives many tragic details about what her children must endure:

My ex-husband and his partner went on to marry. Their first ceremony took place before our state redefined marriage. After it created same-sex marriage, they chose to have a repeat performance. In both cases, my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate. At the second ceremony, which included more than twenty couples, local news stations and papers were there to document the first gay weddings officiated in our state. USA Today did a photo journal shoot on my ex and his partner, my children, and even the grandparents. I was not notified that this was taking place, nor was I given a voice to object to our children being used as props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.

At the time of the first ceremony, the marriage was not recognized by our state, our nation, or our church. And my ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship. This sends a clear message to our children: what you feel trumps all laws, promises, and higher authorities. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want—and it doesn’t matter who you hurt along the way.

See the full story here

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, September 20, 2014

How the NFL Should Fight Domestic Violence

I almost feel sorry for the NFL. You know things are not going your way when the Feminazis feel as if they can give advice on how your league should be run, and with the 2014 season barely underway, you’ve already become a topic on The View. I suppose things could get worse: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell could decide to outlaw tackling.

I’ve been a fan of football and the NFL since I was old enough to spell “Cowboys.” I remember once in elementary school, during an art class, we were supposed to draw what we wanted to be when we grew up. My little hands were not skilled enough to draw men in football uniforms, so I had the bright idea of diagramming plays. That’s right, somewhere around the third grade, my idea of high art was a page full of x’s and o’s accompanied by plenty of lines and arrows.

Along with being a fan of the NFL—and football in general—I’m an even bigger fan of the family. After coaching middle school and high school football for five years in the mid-1990s, I met my wife Michelle. I knew then that those long Sunday afternoons and evenings spent cooped up with a bunch of other men trying to decide things like whether our guards were quick enough to pull and pick up the opponent’s defensive end, were not for me.

After nearly 17 years of marriage (as I’ve noted before), Michelle and I are the parents of four children, including three boys. None of my boys yet play football (karate is their current sport of choice—for my girl as well!), and I’m not sure that they ever will. One thing I am sure of, unlike Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, most of Adrian Peterson’s half-dozen children, and far too many others like them, our children are being raised in a home by a mother and father who are married and committed to marriage.

As Jack Cashill has already pointed out, both Rice and Peterson lacked such a home. And as has often been chronicled, they are far from alone. What’s more, to borrow from Mr. Cashill, as most sentient beings are aware, this is especially true among American blacks. If the NFL really wanted to hit hard against domestic violence, it would not seek the advice and counsel of liberals but would look to (biblical) marriage.

When it comes to domestic violence, there is hardly a situation more dangerous for women or children than when mom and dad (or step-dad or boyfriend) are merely “shacking up.” As was noted years ago, and as Forbes Magazine just recently alluded to, it is far more dangerous for a child to be reared in a home without his or her married biological parents than otherwise.

According to a 2010 federal study, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Additionally, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.

In other words, as W. Bradford Wilcox put it, “one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself is in a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend — especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.”

Likewise, shacking up is much more dangerous for women than is marriage. Compared to married women, women who cohabitate are three times more likely to experience physical aggression and nine times more likely to be murdered. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to suffer domestic violence.

Thus, as anyone who really wants to can see, the real issue when it comes to domestic violence is not the NFL (domestic violence rates are much lower among NFL players than in the general population), but a breakdown of the traditional family. Whether we’re talking about the NFL, kids’ karate, or the myth of man-made global warming, this has been clear for years. Of course the liberal-led media would rather bash the made-for-men-only NFL than surrender one of the tenets of liberalism—that the traditional family doesn’t matter.

I said at the beginning of this that I “almost feel sorry for the NFL.” This is because the NFL is a privately held organization that is responsible for one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the world and can do pretty much whatever it wants when it comes to things like domestic violence among a few of its members. Yet, what does the NFL choose to do? It uses the “playbook” written by the National Organization for Women.

This is in addition to the NFL bending over backwards (sorry!) to accommodate the homosexual agenda. Somebody needs to tell Roger Goodell that liberalism is no friend of football—especially professional football. Like almost everything else concerning liberals, this matter is a means to a political end. Make no mistake about it, the left will attempt to use this moment to increase the power and influence of liberalism.

After a night of heavy drinking by both Ray Rice and his then fiancĂ©e Janay Palmer, when Rice later knocked out his soon-to-be-wife in an elevator, reportedly, soon afterward both Rice and Palmer became born-again Christians. The now married couple were both baptized in March and are receiving “religious mentoring” (read: Christian counseling) from other married couples, including NFL players and their wives.

This is the kind of solution to domestic violence that the NFL should openly embrace and support, as it is the only way that real change can occur. There’s no reason that the most popular sport in the country can’t take such steps. In fact, it would probably increase league popularity. Whether owners and league officials decide to take such steps or not, the players and coaches who know the real solutions in such matters (and there are plenty) need to lead the way.

(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

Friday, September 19, 2014

Hundreds of Marines in Worship

The video below is from Camp Pendleton in California. It shows hundreds of U.S. Marines singing the worship song, "Days of Elijah." These services are called "Faith Warriors" and are held every Sunday night. Watch as these American soldiers boldly declare (with accompanying synchronized gestures) "There's No God Like Jehovah!"  (Maybe this will spread this will spread to the Air Force.)




Sunday, September 14, 2014

Marriage Commitment Challenge

In light of the viral “Ice Bucket Challenge” that has significantly raised both awareness and money in the battle against the terrible disease of ALS, I recently had an idea for a different type of “challenge.” This is a challenge to stand up for the truth—to be seen and heard in the fight against another, much more devastating plague on our culture.

(See our YouTube description here as well as below.)

For years now, I and many others have detaileded the tragic effects of the breakdown of the traditional (biblical) family unit in our culture (see my archive of columns/articles on my “Marriage/Family/Sexuality” page; also search my site for “marriage and family” and the like). In addition to the devastating effects for children brought up in a home without a loving and married mother and father, as has often been chronicled, the breakdown of the family is linked to an increase in poverty, violence, crime, and a host of other social ills.

Divorce, out-of-wedlock births, promiscuity of every kind imaginable, prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation of children, sex-trafficking, homosexuality, same-sex marriage—each of these once considered grossly immoral (“sin”) by most Americans—with some considered so gross as not even to warrant a discussion—are now not only considered acceptable in many circles, but some are even celebrated.

This is especially true of homosexuality. The federal government, the federal courts, state governments and state courts all across the U.S., school systems, corporations, Hollywood, the news media, the sports industries and media—virtually every realm of our culture has capitulated by some measure to the homosexual agenda.

Such acceptance and celebration has infected not only our secular culture, but the church as well. For the last decade we have watched as denomination after denomination, congregation after congregation, in the name of the fallacy that is today’s “tolerance,” compromise long-held biblical truths on marriage and sexuality.

Additionally, the movement to redefine marriage, which is being rabidly debated throughout the U.S., is not only seeking to shatter the foundation upon which all of our social institutions rest, it is seeking to legitimize—using, among other things, the full power of our legal system— homosexuality and all of its perverse variations, including transgenderism.

Bakers, florists, photographers, wedding hosts, and the like have suffered under our legal system due to their Christian views on marriage and homosexuality. This will certainly continue. As I noted a few months ago, and as Al Mohler recently pointed out, “We are in the midst of a massive revolution in morality.” Mohler adds that, “sexual morality is at the center of this revolution.” He refers directly to a “crossroads” and alludes to an unavoidable showdown that is looming within the evangelical church. However, I believe this is the case for our nation in general.

Given all of this, and as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the success of the “Ice Bucket Challenge,” I think it’s time for all who are concerned about where our nation is headed with marriage and sexuality to embrace a different type of challenge. This one involves no financial donation but could cost you plenty; there’s no ice-cold water involved, but it could be much more “chilling” for some. However, if this catches on and turns hearts and minds toward the truth, it will all be worth it.

What I propose is the following: Married couples—husbands and wives that is—as well as interested singles, would video a short (less than 1 minute) commitment statement on marriage and sexuality and post it online—Facebook, YouTube, etc.—for all the world to see. The statements I created (one for marrieds; one for singles) are below. You could use one of mine or create your own. It needs to be brief, so that people can view it quickly, but it needs to communicate clearly the truth on marriage and sexuality.

I propose that husbands and wives alternate reading sections, but do so in a manner that demonstrates unity: the type of unity that a Christian marriage is supposed to have. In other words, two are reading it as one. (My personal preference would be alternating the reading instead of reading it together, but others may reach a different conclusion.) Also, large groups such as Sunday school classes, church small groups, or even whole congregations could make the commitment together. Husbands and wives could make the commitment with their children present.

I especially challenge Christian leaders—pastors, elders, deacons, ministry heads, leaders of Christian colleges and universities, and the like—to make the marriage commitment and do so boldly. I also especially challenge Christians in high-profile parts of our culture—TV celebrities, movie celebrities, sports celebrities, news media celebrities, and the like—to make the marriage commitment.

However, the vast majority of us who make this marriage commitment will be those with a much smaller circle of influence. It will be this group that will convince most people that this commitment is the right thing to do. In other words, it will be the every-day Americans that will point the vast majority to the truth on marriage and sex.

As you challenge others to this commitment, I recommend that you do so in private. Some may not respond well to a public challenge on an issue such as this.

Yes, many of us who are in a Christian marriage have already said our vows before God and a crowd of witnesses. Yet, these drastic times call for more. The voices of deception are many. They need to be countered.

I’m under no illusions that the few words in these marriage commitments will, by themselves, elicit real change in our nation. Neither am I seeking merely a political solution. By and large, our politics are only a reflection of our culture. Real change will come as people live out the commitment and God uses His truth to bring repentance.

In other words, change will come when those deceived and those seeking the truth see millions of loving, committed, and fruitful marriages lived out before their eyes and God reveals to their hearts that this is the way that marriage was meant to be. Nevertheless, given where we are with marriage and sexuality in our nation, we need a large wake-up call and I believe that this “marriage commitment challenge” could be that call.

Dr. Mohler is right: sooner or later we’re all going to have to decide where we stand in these matters. We may as well start now. Is this “corny”? Perhaps, but certainly no more so than dumping a bucket of ice water on your head to help cure a disease—and look what that has accomplished.

Below are the commitments that I’ve written. Each one has been examined, and edited where necessary, by pastors and those involved in family ministry.

Married Couples:

As husband and wife we commit, before God and all who witness this, to remain faithful in all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage.

Namely, we commit to remain faithful to one another and keep our marriage bed pure; and we commit to remain married until our earthly union is dissolved by death. Furthermore, as a union of one man and one woman, we commit to allow God to use our union as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

Last, we commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.




Singles:

I commit, before God and all who witness this, to remain faithful to all that the Bible reveals on the holy covenant of marriage.

Namely, I commit to keep myself sexually pure while unmarried and model and teach this behavior to those in my circle of influence. Furthermore, I commit to allow God to use me as a single person as He sees fit to build His Kingdom.

If I am ever married, I commit to remain faithful to my spouse, keep our marriage bed pure, and remain married until our earthly union is dissolved by death.


Last, whether married or single, I commit to model and to teach others the truth on marriage and sexuality. Namely, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage.


Saturday, September 13, 2014

When Voting, Remember the Federal Judiciary (updated)

Near the top of the page on Drudge this evening is a link to the New York Times lead tomorrow (Sunday). The title of the piece is Building Legacy, Obama Reshapes Appellate Bench. The article notes the recent changes that have occurred within the federal judiciary. It begins:

"Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

"For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees."

The piece notes that, of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals, Democratic appointees to these powerful federal benches now hold majorities in nine of them. The article further declares that, 

"The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts."

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted noting that "This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten." Schumer is exactly, and tragically, correct. This was one of my biggest fears of an Obama presidency--especially a presidency that was accompanied by a Democratic majority in the Senate. 

As I noted in early 2008 when making my Case for McCain, "Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt." 

Additionally, as I added a few months later (June) of 2008, "On judicial nominees the choice for conservatives in November is clear." If only more Americans had listened! Packing the federal judiciary with liberals is a disastrous consequence of electing liberals such as Obama and Schumer.

Of course such disastrous consequences are easily seen with the many federal rulings that seek to redefine marriage and legally force the legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. Along with their homosexual agenda, liberals are using the courts to push their calamitous climate agenda along with their hideous healthcare agenda. Unlike legislation, as Roe v. Wade teaches us, such efforts by the courts are not so easily undone, Again, as Schumer points out, it could take generations before we see a reversal of these efforts by liberals, as one of the most enduring accomplishments of any presidency is his impact on the judiciary. 

Conservatives need to do more to educate our fellow Americans on this matter. This needs to be happening now as one-third of the U.S. Senate, which must confirm the president's judicial nominees, is up for reelection this November--less than two months from today.  

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

Friday, September 12, 2014

Same-Sex Marriage ("Gay Marriage" for most liberals) Explained

This is a few years old (note than when this was made, Obama still "opposed" same-sex marriage), but still very good. Enjoy.


Sunday, September 7, 2014

God's Not That Concerned with Your Happiness

In We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’ from God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis noted that when his acquaintance “Clare” spoke of “happiness” she “simply and solely” meant “sexual happiness.” Because, as Lewis noted, “[W]omen like Clare never use the word ‘happiness’ in any other sense.” Additionally, Clare never spoke of the “right” to any other kind of happiness. She was, after all, “rather leftist in her politics, and would have been scandalized if anyone had defended the actions of a ruthless man-eating tycoon on the ground that his happiness consisted in making money and he was pursuing his happiness.”

We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’ was the last published article by Lewis before his death in 1963. Thus, almost certainly “Clare” was a product of the sexual revolution. The piece begins with Clare concluding that “Mr. A” and “Mrs. B,” who each divorced their spouses to marry one another, were justified because “they had a right to happiness.”

Many a trespass prospers these days in the name of someone’s “happiness.” (“Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth!”) Of course, today there are “Clares” all around us—millions of times over—peddling this “right to happiness” philosophy. And just like the early 1960s, this is especially true of things in the sexual realm.

Jay Bookman, liberal columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, recently wrote about conflicting rulings on same-sex marriage. (FINALLY, a federal judge with some backbone and sense!) A comment under his piece summed up perfectly the rationale for so many Americans when it comes to same-sex marriage: “For the life of me I can't understand WHY anyone would want to keep someone from marrying anyone they choose as long as they are of legal age and can give consent. Many states also allow 1st cousins to marry now. I just don't understand depriving anyone the right to be happy.”

Such juvenile thought has also invaded circles inhabited by those who should know better. As I pointed out last year, Republican Senator Rob Portman from Ohio, who, over the last several years, has been in the conversation as a candidate for the White House, reversed himself and became a supporter of same-sex marriage. (For which he is now rightly paying a political price.)

According to Portman’s own words, his conversion on this grave issue was due to the fact that, in 2011, his son Will announced that he was gay. Thus Senator Portman, not wanting to stand in the way of his son’s opportunity “to pursue happiness and fulfillment,” decided to join the “Happy Gang” on same-sex marriage.

The Happy Gang has corrupted more than marriage. Many have decided to capitulate on a wide range of homosexual-related issues because of the perceived “right to happiness.” Tragically, and in most cases to please the pro-homosexual crowd, just as with the perverse notion of modern-day tolerance, the “right to happiness” philosophy has invaded the church—even the (supposed) evangelical church.

Just days ago Victoria Osteen—wife of Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, the largest Protestant church in the U.S.—was videoed boldly declaring, “I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God–I mean, that’s one way to look at it–we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we are happy. . . . That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy. . . .”

She continued: “So, I want you to know this morning — Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. . . . When you come to church, when you worship him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?”

In other words, “Take up your happiness and follow Jesus!” Or, “My yoke is easy because I just want to make you happy.” Poor Mrs. Osteen has taken her lumps for this, so I don’t want to pile on. (It wouldn’t be very Christ-like anyway.) As Al Mohler deftly put it, “America deserves the Osteens.” Not only that, but America, along with much of the rest of the world, craves the Osteen’s brand of Christianity—or religion—or whatever you choose to call it.

It makes it so much easier to decide what’s right and wrong when all you have to ask is, “Does it make you happy?” Is there any wonder that we have become a culture virtually bereft of shame? Is there anyone in liberal America who knows sin for what it really is? Has it occurred to the Happy Gang to weigh the “happiness” of the beheading-butchers of ISIS, as they cut off the heads of “infidels,” before we decide to do anything about them?

Don’t get me wrong, like Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty crowd, I love me some “happy, happy, happy.” However, as Lewis reminds us, when our founding fathers wrote of the right to the “pursuit of happiness,” that “august declaration” was tempered by the notion that our pursuits are limited by means sanctioned according to the eternal Law of Nature. In other words, we are not to seek happiness simply according to our own whims and desires.

Also, though I believe that God enjoys us being happy, that is certainly not His main concern—even when our pursuits are noble. As my lovely wife wisely put it, He’s much more concerned with our holiness than our happiness. This is accomplished only through the redemptive work of Jesus.

To get us to see this, to see the only path to holiness (“the Way” as Jesus put it), and hopefully choose that path, is God’s main concern. Whether we’re rich or poor, hungry or fed, clothed or naked, sick or well, happy or sad, we should seek this path. Some of us will follow this path though our family will forsake us as a result; for others we follow this path “even unto death,” because we know that, in spite of what we may face in this world, one day there will be no more sadness, and not just happiness, but perfect joy.

(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, 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