Friday, April 18, 2014

The Wonderful Cross!

The physical resurrection of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Noted biblical scholar, professor, and author Wilbur M. Smith said that, “The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down…” No other event in human history changed the world like the resurrection of Jesus. The cross was terrible for Him, but wonderful for all the rest of humanity. (For more on the Resurrection, see the links above.)

Thursday, April 17, 2014

The Games Democrats Must Play

Now that Louisiana Senate Democrat Mary Landrieu’s deceptive video ad has been widely panned, it is worth noting that her efforts, though somewhat unique, are something that Democrats across the U.S. are probably going to mimic often this election cycle. (Is anyone really surprised that today’s liberals would resort to make-believe to sell themselves?) An excellent case in point is the Senate race in Georgia to replace Saxby Chambliss.

While a crowded GOP field battles it out, democrat Michelle Nunn is raising money and liberal hopes when it comes to the Democrats being able to hold on to majority power in the U.S. Senate. Nunn’s campaign raised well over $2 million in the first quarter of 2014. This is more than double the highest reporting GOP candidate, Jack Kingston.

In the solidly red state of Georgia, Nunn is going to great lengths to separate herself, not only from Obama, but from liberalism in general. Her first TV ad doesn’t even mention her party and is purposefully vague on the issues. Instead, she mentions President George H.W. Bush and touts her “optimism.” No doubt this will continue after her GOP opponent is determined. To me, this begs the question: how in the world can anyone be fooled? Are the low-information voters really that na├»ve?

As Byron York noted about Landrieu—and as Republicans love to point out—over 95% of her votes in the Senate have been with Obama. This is the case with almost every Senate Democrat. As Roll Call reveals, “Every vulnerable Senate Democrat up for re-election in 2014 voted with President Barack Obama at least 90 percent of the time in 2013.” The Senate Democrats who are deemed “not vulnerable” vote with Obama even more frequently.

Thus there is absolutely no reason to believe that Nunn, or any other Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, would do anything other than tow the liberal line as (currently) drawn by Obama. Everything from Obamacare, to a radical energy policy that is predicated upon one of the greatest myths ever perpetuated upon mankind, to a redefinition of the institution upon which all cultures rest, Nunn would no doubt fall in line with the rest of her party.

In addition, Nunn will be beholden to a Democratic Party Platform that is filled with “intrinsic evils,” and devoid of any mention of God. She also belongs to the political party that boos the very mention of God. Along with supporting abortion at every phase “regardless of the ability to pay,” Democrats call for laws that guarantee that “women have access to contraception in their health insurance plan,” which, of course, we now see playing out before our eyes.

To top it all off, just like Landrieu and the rest of her liberal colleagues, Nunn would vote for Harry Reid to lead the Senate. To win the race in Georgia and help the GOP to take the Senate, along with properly handling any “gotcha questions” sure to come their way, all that any GOP candidate worth his or her weight in ballots needs to do is properly educate the electorate in these realities.

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, April 9, 2014

Revenge of the Gays

No one should be surprised that the Gay Gestapo saw to it that Brendan Eich got what they thought he deserved. “Live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. We were warned.

In December of 2005 The Becket Fund, a nonprofit institute dedicated to protecting freedom of religion, held a conference to discuss the legal ramifications of same-sex marriage. Ten of the nation’s top First Amendment scholars, liberal, conservative, and moderate, were brought in to present their views of same-sex marriage and the likely outcomes if it is legalized. As a result of the conference a series of papers was published.  These papers were widely reported on. Publications such as The Weekly Standard, National Review, World Magazine, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, and many others have covered the results of this conference.

The conference focused on four topics: Can the government force religious institutions to recognize same-sex unions? Can the government withhold benefits, such as tax exemption, from religious institutions that refuse to recognize same-sex unions? How will freedom of religion arguments fare against legal same-sex marriage? What are the effects on biblical (traditional) marriage?

Mark Stern, general counsel for the liberal leaning American Jewish Congress and a supporter of gay marriage, wrote in his paper, “No one seriously believes that clergy will be forced, or even asked, to perform marriages that are anathema to them. Same-sex marriage would, however, work a sea change in American law. That change will reverberate across the legal and religious landscape in some ways that are today unpredictable.” According to Peter Steinfels, writing for The New York Times, what Mr. Stern has in mind are “schools, health care centers, social service agencies, summer camps, homeless shelters, nursing homes, orphanages, retreat houses, community centers, athletic programs and private businesses or services that operate by religious standards, like kosher caterers and marriage counselors.”

George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley, also a supporter of gay marriage, in his Becket paper noted that, “As states accept same-sex marriage and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, conflicts will grow between the government and discriminatory organizations. There will be many religious-based organizations that will refuse to hire individuals who are homosexual or members of a same-sex marriage. If those individuals are holding a state license of marriage or civil union, it will result in a discriminatory act that was not only based on sexual orientation, but a lawful state status.”

Doug Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University, and an opponent of gay marriage, participated in the Becket conference and wrote, “Were federal equal protection or substantive due process to be construed to require states to license same-sex marriage, those who have profound moral or religious objection to the social affirmation of homosexual conduct would be argued to be the out-liers of civil society.” Therefore, he argues that churches could be targeted for legal penalties and disadvantages as were universities that participated in racial discrimination decades ago.

He adds that, “This is hardly a far-fetched (idea), as apparently one of the main aspirations of the homosexual movement is retaliation against the defenders of traditional marriage.” Dan Brown of the National Organization for Marriage hinted at “aspirations of the homosexual movement” as well, and took it even further. After the will of the California people was undone with a judge ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional, Brown declared that, “The goal of this movement is to use the law to reshape the culture so that disagreement with their views on sex and marriage gets stigmatized and repressed like bigotry.”

There you have it. Ultimately this debate isn’t about marriage or “discrimination.” This is an attempt, using the power of the American legal system, to force moral legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. And it is about revenge upon all those—past and present—who have stood, and continue to stand in the way of such “progress.”

Unless America comes to her senses, there almost certainly will be many more Brendan Eichs, Barronelle Stutzmans, Jack Phillips, and Elaine Huguenins. After all, the undoing of an absolute truth (marriage is a union of one man and one woman) is bound to be confrontational and messy. When you call good evil and evil good, there are bound to be casualties.

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

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Fruit of Liberalism

Is there anything that liberalism can’t corrupt? From the conscience to communities to corporations to families, churches, schools, and government, its destruction seems to know no bounds. Tragically, the evidence is all around us.

Earlier this year the FBI published its crime statistics for 2013. As noted by a few in the conservative media, the ten most violent cities in the U.S. are all led by democrats. As most would deduce by the use of common sense, (but I’ll provide you with the data anyway) large U.S. cities in general are significantly more violent that rural areas. According to CDC data, nearly 60% of gun homicides in the U.S. occur in the 62 cities of the country’s 50 largest metro areas.

Of course, the political machine in most every large U.S. city is dominated by democrats. All of the 12 largest U.S. cities are led by democrats. Additionally, a report released last year by the real estate website revealed that America’s 25 most dangerous neighborhoods all happen to be black—and we all know which political party black Americans overwhelmingly prefer (in spite of what liberalism has perpetrated upon the black community).

And what is the liberal answer to this violence? Make it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain the necessary means to defend themselves. As the most recent Fort Hood shooting teaches us: good guys—or girls—with guns stop bad guys with guns.

Not only does liberalism breed crime and violence, but also debt and poverty. A recent study from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the states according to their fiscal solvency. The top five states: Alaska (#5), South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming (#1)—all very red states where much of the economic boom has been due to fiscal responsibility and an increase in fossil fuel production, both despised by most liberals.

The bottom five states: California (#5), Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Jersey (#1)—all deep blue states (yes, even with Chris Christie in New Jersey) plagued by high taxes and enormous debt, which includes massive public pension liabilities.

What’s more, as Forbes Magazine pointed out in 2012, “the ten poorest U.S. cities with a population of at least 250,000: Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, and Newark. Besides all having poverty rates between 24 percent and 32 percent, these cities share a common political factor: Only two have had a Republican mayor since 1961.”

As the author points out, this is due to the “Curley effect,” which is a political strategy of “increasing the relative size of one’s political base through distortionary, wealth-reducing policies.” In other words, a politician or a political party can achieve long-term political dominance “by tipping the balance of votes in their direction through the implementation of policies that strangle and stifle economic growth. Counterintuitively, making a city poorer leads to political success for the engineers of that impoverishment.” Of course, lately democrats have had significant success with this political strategy on a nation-wide scale.

Besides the ballot box, people can also vote with their feet. Thus, as Obamanomics continues to stifle economies where state and city democrats are eager to tow the liberal line, many residents are simply deciding to uproot themselves and their families. The top ten states that Americans are fleeing: New Mexico (#10), Kansas, Connecticut, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Illinois, and New York (#1).

Half of these states currently have republican (not necessarily devoted conservative) governors, but with most, this is only a recent phenomenon. Additionally, all of the states except for Kansas voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

In addition to national, state, and city balance sheets and arrest records, our government schools (K-12 along with colleges and universities) are another place to take note of when looking at the rot produced by liberalism. In fact, such rot is more prominent in the government schools, as for decades the federal courts and the Department of Education have ensured that liberal philosophy dominates these classrooms.

One need look no further than how government schools are forced (or eagerly choose in many cases) to deal with the moral issues to see the tragic effects of liberalism on so many of our youth. From abortion to sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, Darwinian evolution and the like, there are many examples of how liberalism in the government schools is undermining traditional (biblical) American values. However, currently there is nothing that better illustrates where liberal philosophy will ultimately take our youth than the issue of “transgenderism.”

The transgender lie is infecting more and more school districts. Last year California infamously became the first state to pass a law giving special privileges to “transgender” individuals. Thus, government school children in California now have the “right” to use whichever bathroom or locker room they choose, along with the “right” to decide whether to participate in boy or girl sports activities.

Led by liberals, other states will follow. Inevitably the courts will get involved, and just as we are perhaps staring at a redefinition of marriage across all of the U.S., gender redefinition could become a part of the legal code throughout America. This is madness that can come only from a mind and soul corrupted by liberalism. As the Kinks mildly put it in 1970: “Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.”

Even the church is not immune to the perverse effects of liberalism. In 2012, Ross Douthat of The New York Times asked, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” Nothing exudes “Liberal Christianity” like the Episcopal Church. As the Times put it, “It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.” In other words, it sounds a lot like the Church in Thyatira (Revelation chapter 2) who “refuses to repent of her immorality” and will thus be thrown onto “a bed of suffering.”

In 2012, while Episcopalians were voting to approve same-sex unions, they also voted to make it illegal to “discriminate against anyone” (which is pure folly). The objective was to give an official recognition and blessing to “transgenderism.” 

As the “good” Reverend Susan Russell, a deputy from the Diocese of Los Angeles, noted, “It is not just a good day for transgender Episcopalians and their friends, families and allies. It is a good day for all of us who are part of a church willing to take the risk to continue to draw the circle wider as we work to live out our call to make God's inclusive love known to the whole human family.”

The “human family” is where liberalism has wrought the most destruction. Using legislation and the courts, liberal support of abortion, pornography, homosexuality, the welfare state, and a redefinition of marriage, has “succeeded” in wreaking great havoc with the institution upon which our whole culture rests. Like the “Curley effect,” this social engineering has yielded significant political gains for democrats. For once the family is destroyed, where else but Big Government will tens-of-millions of Americans look for sustenance and salvation?

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, April 1, 2014

Dealing With a "Rape Culture"

Recently, in Time Magazine, feminist and Democratic advisor Zerlina Maxwell bemoaned the supposed “rape culture” that exists in the U.S. She did this while taking to task fellow Time essayist Caroline Kitchens for writing of “rape culture as a theory over-hyped by ‘hysterical’ feminists.” Reading each column, they both make some valid points, but both also fall far short of the truth when it comes to dealing with the tragic consequences of a culture obsessed with sex.

Maxwell suggests that a culture where men sexually violate women flourishes because there are no “great social consequences” for men who perpetrate such acts. Kitchens declares this nonsense and notes that “Rape is a horrific crime, and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced.” In addition, Kitchens downplays the role of “film, magazines, fashion,” and music such as Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” when it comes to creating a “rape culture.”

Maxwell and those like-minded want to pretend that the actions and behaviors of women play no role in whether they are victims of sexual assault. However, no one should be surprised that when a woman acts and dresses like a prostitute, there are immoral men who are all too willing to treat her as such. (This is especially the case when alcohol is involved.) Immorality breeds immorality.

Prostitutes are a tragic example of what often results when women use their bodies as a means to an end. Prostitutes are more likely than any other group of women ever studied to be, among many other terrible things, victims of rape and homicide. As noted in 2008 by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, “The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering.” According to a study by The American Journal of Epidemiology, the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women—working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34. The Journal concluded, “Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States.”

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

So what does this have to do with women in general? After all, the vast majority of women are not prostitutes. This may be the case in a literal sense. However, in the sex-saturated culture that exists in the U.S., there are many women and men who would never consider themselves prostitutes but who do nothing more than profit from selling their bodies.

In spite of Kitchens’ implications, this behavior has had tragically profound consequences for our culture. In our household we often refer to the Hollywood film sluts (whether big screen, TV, or music videos), those who grace the pages of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue (and other such magazines), and those who parade down the runway of a Victoria Secrets “fashion” (read: sex) show, as high-priced harlots. Thus those behind such productions (usually men) are little more than pimps eager to line their pockets.

Our media (internet, TV, magazines, billboards, and so on) is filled with these images. Even everyday commercials—for butter, milk, body spray, plumbing products, dusting spray—use sex to sell, both to men and women, boys and girls.

Decades of our children have been, and continue to be, brought up with such smut. For nearly three generations now we have had boys becoming men who have seen women portrayed like this (despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents) all of their lives. It is little wonder then, that, instead of marriage and family, they now seek “friends with benefits.”

As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, and in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered.

As my lovely wife recently noted, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.” (See her recent post on modesty here.)

It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end—which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children now being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is at least partly the sad result of growing up without a father.

Yet, instead of promoting (biblical) marriage, feminists like Maxwell advance education as the answer. She asks, “How about we teach young men when a woman says stop, they stop?” (Yeah, because they haven’t heard that one before!) And: “How about we teach young men that when a woman has too much to drink that they should not have sex with her, if for no other reason but to protect themselves from being accused of a crime?”

How about we teach young men (and women) of the value of marriage and family? How about we teach them of the dangers of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle? How about we teach men and women that, once they create a child, it is not okay to kill it in the womb? Maxwell and her cohorts are the chief cheerleaders for abortion in the U.S. As Mother Teresa taught us, abortion breeds violence: “Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.”

Also, how about we teach boys to be men, and girls to be women? According to family and feminism expert Suzanne Venker, many men have decided never to get married because “women aren’t women anymore.”

“Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically,” says Venker. She concludes that today’s women are “angry” and “defensive” because “they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.”

In other words, feminists like Maxwell are mourning a culture that they helped create, and, with their unwavering support of abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, same-sex marriage, and they like, are continuing to damage. Little will change until these efforts stop.

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, March 25, 2014

Savage Is as Savage Does

(Updated below.)

In September of 1493, Columbus again departed Spain for the New World. This time there were 17 ships and 1200 colonists. They landed in the Indies on November 3, 1493. In his first voyage, on Christmas eve, 1492, the Santa Maria ran aground and the ship had to be abandoned. Columbus left 40 men in a settlement named La Navidad on the island of Haiti. Upon returning to the settlement in late November of 1493, Columbus' worst fears were realized. All 40 men had been killed. They were victims of the Caribs (of the Caribbean).

The Caribs were particularly savage in that, among other sadistic things, they practiced cannibalism. ("Carib" is the origin of the English word "cannibal.")

Accompanying Columbus on his second voyage to the New World was the young Italian nobleman Michele de Cuneo. A 1495 letter penned by de Cuneo gives further evidence for the savagery of the Caribs:

In that island [St. Maria de Guadalupe] we took twelve very beautiful and very fat women from 15 to 16 years old, together with two boys of the same age. These had the genital organ cut to the belly; and this we thought had been done in order to prevent them from meddling with their wives or maybe to fatten them up and later eat them. These boys and girls had been taken by the above mentioned Caribs; and we sent them to Spain to the King, as a sample...

The Caribs whenever they catch these Indians eat them as we would eat kids [goats] and they say that a boy's flesh tastes better than that of a woman. Of this human flesh they are very greedy, so that to eat of that flesh they stay out of their country for six, eight, or even ten years before they repatriate; and they stay so long, whenever they go, that they depopulate the islands...

We went to the temple of those Caribs, in which we found two wooden statues, arranged so that they look like a Pieta. We were told that whenever someone's father is sick, the son goes to the temple and tells the idol that his father is ill and the idol says whether he should live or not; and he stays there until the idol answers yes or no. If he says no, the son goes home, cuts his father's head off and then cooks it; I don't believe they eat it but truly when it is white they place it in the above-mentioned temple; this they do only to the lords. That idol is called Seyti...

According to what we have seen in all the islands where we have been, both the Indians and the Caribs are largely sodomites [emphasis mine], not knowing (I believe) whether they are acting right or wrong. We have judged that this accursed vice [emphasis mine] may have come to the Indians from those Caribs; because these, as I said before, are wilder men and when conquering and eating those Indians, for spite they may have also committed that extreme offence [emphasis mine], which proceeding thence may have been transmitted from one to the other. 

Note that the young nobleman reserved his harshest adjectives, not for the act of cannibalism, or the worship of heathen idols, but for sodomy. Remember, as same-sex marriage continues to make inroads in our culture, the real goal of the homosexual agenda: full (legally and culturally--whether you like it or not) acceptance of homosexuality in all its perverse forms: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and so on.

Update: It has come to my attention that the young Italian “nobleman” that penned the letter from which the excerpt above was taken was himself quite the “savage.” My source for the letter contained only the excerpt above. Here is the full text. His letter also contains this:

While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman, whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me, and with whom, having taken her into my cabin, she being naked according to their custom, I conceived desire to take pleasure. I wanted to put my desire into execution but she did not want it and treated me with her finger nails in such a manner that I wished I had never begun. But seeing that (to tell you the end of it all), I took a rope and thrashed her well, for which she raised such unheard of screams that you would not have believed your ears. Finally we came to an agreement in such manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots.
Obviously it escaped de Cuneo that fornication and rape are as detestable and undesirable (an “extreme offence”) as sodomy.  (It is interesting to note that, in 1493, de Cuneo, being Catholic, perhaps thought that he could “buy”—in the form of indulgences—his way out of his sin.) Of course, in our culture we do not (yet) debate the wickedness of rape (fornication has, sadly, long been accepted) or cannibalism, but homosexuality is another matter.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Conviction Friction

Striking down Michigan’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman noted, “Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”

It is stunning that these federal judges continue to parrot the “equal protection under the law” nonsense when it comes to homosexuality. For nearly 200 years, and without any Constitutional conflictions or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal.

Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. It is also noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment—containing the “Equal Protection” clause—being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. Even as recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, many federal judges today are discovering “rights” favoring homosexuals (especially concerning marriage) that went heretofore unnoticed in the U.S. for over two centuries. And yes, just like tens-of-millions of Americans across the U.S., many Michigan residents’ views on marriage stem from strong religious “convictions.” In fact, similar “convictions” led to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and thus, the very forming of the United States.

Every law that exists is rooted in some “conviction” concerning what is right and what is wrong. The supporters of same-sex marriage, and the courts favoring them, are also operating from certain “convictions.” All that needs to be decided is whose “convictions” are going to form the basis for U.S. law: those rooted in absolute truth or those rooted in the “wisdom” of mankind.

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

Friday, March 21, 2014

"Moral Monday" Morons

For liberals, attempting to claim the moral high-ground is like a community organizer winning the Nobel Peace Prize: it only happens with willful suspension of reason and facts—which means it happens a lot in liberal circles. The most recent case in point is the “Moral Monday” movement that has popped up in a handful of states across the south.

For evidence of the corrupt morality that exists in this movement, you need to know nothing more than Moral Mondays were started by the NAACP. First in North Carolina, later in South Carolina, and now in Georgia, Moral Mondays are a sad attempt to sway politicians and voters in states that are generally dominated by conservatives. These attempts are usually through acts of civil dimwittedness—I mean disobedience—involving such things as protesting at state Capitols, disrupting legislative sessions, and staging sit-ins.

Because the moral demands of liberalism are few and malleable, any movement born of liberalism will have a corrupt morality. For further evidence of this, witness the Moral Monday protesters as they declare that it is “morally repugnant” that people are dying because “they don’t have access to health care,” while also calling for tax-payer funded (“free” in the fantasy land of liberalism) “health care” that will allow them to kill their unborn children.

In other words, it wouldn't be too surprising to hear some tattooed, belly-pierced, pot-smoking, bra-less skank of a libtard scream: “My mother died because she had no health care! Now give me my free healthcare so I can go to the clinic and kill my daughter!” Liberals refer to such genocide as “Reproductive Justice.”

In addition to much other nonsense, Georgia’s Moral Monday website decries the state “promoted bigotry [directed] towards the LGBTQ community.” No evidence is offered. We can only assume that such “bigotry” is the result of Georgia legally defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Only a liberal can take an institution that has existed across cultures for thousands of years (from “the beginning” according to a Christian worldview) and deem it “bigoted.”

The most tragic aspect of this moronic "moral" movement is that many so-called “pastors” are at the forefront. The (Ir) Reverend Raphael Warnock, pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor, has been a large part of the Moral Monday protests in Georgia. The (Ir) Reverend William Barber II is the leader of Moral Mondays in North Carolina. (He’s also—surprise!—president of North Carolina’s chapter of the NAACP.)

How sad is it that such supposed “men of God” have aligned themselves with a political party that boos the inclusion of God in its platform, and has devoted itself to support the killing of children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, as well as promoting sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage?

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

Monday, March 17, 2014

A Message to Millennials

While much is being made of the political ramifications of a recent report on Millennials from the Pew Research Center, instead of conservatives wringing our hands about what to do with these young “Spicolis,” in order to straighten them out, we need more conversation about how we have gotten here. Also, Millennials need a clear understanding of the political choices that they face.

There is much to address with the generation that, more than any other, is responsible for electing Barack Obama leader of the free world—twice. Sadly, this is the case for Millennials who call themselves conservatives as well as their uber-liberal counterparts.

First of all, they’ve all been lied to—a great deal, particularly about sex. Such deception is nothing new. It has been going on for millennia. As J.R.R. Tolkien put it nearly three-quarters of a century ago, “The dislocation of sex-instinct is one of the chief symptoms of the Fall. The world has been ‘going to the bad’ all down the ages… [T]he ‘hard spirit of concupiscence’ has walked down every street, and sat leering in every house, since Adam fell.”

However, growing up in the age of technology that we all enjoy, Millennials have been saturated with sexual propaganda like no other generation. This is significant in that so much of what we debate in the moral realm of our culture centers on sex.

Abortion, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, divorce, pornography, contraception, and the like are ultimately all about sex. For decades now, these issues have been hotly debated everywhere from the dinner table to the Supreme Court of the United States. Far too many Millennials have voted for politicians based solely on where they stand on these matters. Thus, they certainly need and deserve the truth when it comes to these moral issues.

Second, the oft-repeated protest that goes something like, “We need to stop legislating morality!” is a tired, foolish, and ignorant complaint. Likewise, and just as foolish and ignorant, is the idea that conservatives can besocially conservative in their private activities without trying to impose their views on other people.” Why aren’t liberals implored (especially by conservative Millennials) to be socially liberal in their private activities without trying to impose their views on other people?

Conservatives did not ask for these battles. We are not the aggressors in the moral wars. For example, after the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling (which overturned the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the U.S.) by the U.S. Supreme Court, most conservatives would have been content with the “live and let live approach.” However, having government “out of the bedrooms” was not good enough for liberals. Thus, the assault on marriage began.

Make no mistake about it; someone’s morality is going to rule us. Before shunning the Christian morality (upon which this country was founded), that teaches among many other wonderful things that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage is a union of one man and one woman for life, Millennials would do well to examine the evidence.

Many of them need to look no further than their own upbringing. Millennials are more likely than any other generation in American history to have been brought up in homes that suffered divorce or no marriage at all. The consequences that children endure as a result of their parents divorcing or as a result of growing up in a single-parent home (almost always without a father) or with same-sex parents are tragic and well documented.

Children of divorce are more likely to be poor, have behavior problems, and use illegal drugs. They are also more likely to struggle academically, suffer with depression, and commit suicide. Children born out of wedlock suffer even worse. They are significantly more likely to be poor; they have more health problems; and they have much slower cognitive and social development. Children born out of wedlock achieve significantly less academically as well as occupationally.

These consequences are devastating not only for individuals and families, but for the nation at large. Even liberals realize this, although their solutions, of course, involve bigger government. A case in point is the recent column by DeWayne Wickham on how President Obama “seeks to fix what ails minority males.”

A great many of these minority males were brought up in homes without fathers. Do you think Obama, Wickham, and the like will urge these men not to perpetuate this crisis by fathering children out of wedlock? Do you think traditional marriage—where mothers and fathers are together in the home and both invested in their children—will be part of their solution?

Of course not. Wickham wants another “War on Poverty.” (Because the first one worked so well—evidenced by the record number of Americans on food stamps.) Obama advisor Valarie Jarrett is “pumped up…to have the federal government do all it can to support this effort.” Whenever liberals say “federal support,” it’s time to hide your wallet. Whenever liberals say that they are “pumped up” about “federal support,” it’s time to visit banks in the Caymans.

Even more disturbing are the proposed solutions to “fix” our economy offered up recently by Millennial Jesse Myerson. (The fact that Rolling Stone saw fit to print his drivel is also quite disturbing.) In what almost seems like satire meant to deride liberals, Myerson presents a socialist smorgasbord that every Millennial “should be fighting for.”

As a solution to unemployment, he proposes government-guaranteed “work for everybody.” Such work would, of course, pay a “living wage,” that, of course, would be determined by the government. “But let’s think even bigger,” Myerson declares as he next suggests Social Security payments for everyone; “universal basic income, in which the government would just add a sum sufficient for subsistence to everyone's bank account every month.” Thus, Myerson amazingly concludes (giving us even more reason to stereotype young liberals as lazy), participation in the labor force would become “truly voluntary, thereby enabling people to get a life.”

The third proposal is to “take back the land.” Myerson then goes into a rant about landlords who “don't really do anything to earn their money. They just claim ownership of buildings and charge people who actually work for a living the majority of our incomes for the privilege of staying in boxes that these owners often didn't build and rarely if ever improve.”

Did you catch that? Myerson’s stupidity and hypocrisy are stunning. Just a few sentences after he lauds the idea of a nation where work is optional, Myerson criticizes property owners for not having to work—while patting himself on the back as someone “who actually work[s]!”

After Jonah Goldberg took Myerson to task, Emmett Rensin of the L.A. Times ran to Myerson’s defense. Rensin concluded that “Young leftists like Myerson and myself share a moral outlook that fundamentally differs from conservatives like Goldberg: Freedom, in the most prosperous nation on Earth, must entail the freedom to act without the constant specter of homelessness, hunger and preventable illness.”

In other words, Rensin and his comrades want to live by the pagan “do as thou wilt” philosophy and not have to suffer any consequences for their choices. Or, to paraphrase George Costanza, such “leftists” would prefer to live in the fantasy world of Cosmo Kramer: do nothing, make money without working, mooch food (and health care, etc.) off their neighbors, and have all the sex they want without any of the costs.

All of this begs a question of Millennials—especially those calling themselves conservatives. What do you prefer: to be guided by, and have a government that reflects, principles that place “moral chains” upon our appetites (as Edmund Burke instructs us) in order to help us prevent social and economic crises; or expensive Big Government programs to “fix” them? (Immorality is expensive—in more ways than one!) You’re going to have to live with one or the other.

It is folly to pursue politics that take a conservative approach to economic issues and a liberal approach to the moral ones. There is no going halfway here. It’s time for Millennials who want to be conservatives to be big boys and girls and swallow the whole pill. Conservatives cannot leave our morality at the door when it comes to issues involving sex. The moral arguments in favor of sound fiscal policy (“It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”) are rooted in the same morality that teaches us that marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that killing a child in the womb is wrong.

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, March 8, 2014

Liberals Prefer the Land of Make Believe

Life is much easier for a liberal. This is certainly the case when it comes to politics, since (as I noted recently) for liberalism, the moral demands are few. Thus, governing becomes a matter of seeking and even manufacturing what is popular, not what is right.

When you operate in the realm of fantasy, it is much easier not only to ignore the truth, but also to manufacture crises and perpetuate false injustices so as to paint oneself as the savior for what needs (or will need) fixing. Thus, “never let a crisis go to waste” is a frequent means by which political power is obtained and kept. Many people are willing to cast their votes for those who promise to “protect” them—from the climate, from the corporations, from the Christians, from the employers, and even from the consequences of their own bad decisions. “Pajama Boy” is the poster child here.

When manufacturing crises, the media—both news and entertainment—are necessary and effective tools. Whether racism, climate change, reproductive “rights,” marriage “rights,” gender “rights,” (How can so much wrong come from so many “rights?”) economic justice, and so on, today’s mainstream media has partnered with the Democratic Party to ensure that the myths live on and liberals continue to get elected.

A case in point is the recent revelation that for several years now, ABC and CBS have completely ignored scientific views that contradict the liberal meme on climate change. Thus, not only do we get the repeated doom-and-gloom forecasts of the warmists, but we are also (directly or indirectly) told that the debate is over. In the State of the Union, no less, President Obama declared, “[T]he debate is over. Climate Change is a fact.”

Along with ABC and CBS, other media outlets got the memo from Obama and the democrats. Late last year, the L.A. Times announced that it no longer would publish letters to the editor from man-made global warming skeptics. The popular website Reddit later made a similar decision. Such is the verdict when useful myths must be protected.

This would be only alarming instead of tragic if billions (perhaps trillions) of dollars were not at stake, and if the U.S. Secretary of State (along with the Pentagon) did not think that climate change was an increasing threat to our national security. Battling the make-believe crisis of climate change is much preferable to a real menace such as Vladimir Putin and a nuclear-armed Russia.

When it comes to dealing with Putin and Russia, as Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard remarks, the Obama administration’s foreign policy is an amazingly “transparent case of pretending the world is what we wish it to be, rather than seeing it as it is.” It’s a lot easier to win battles that are fought in the arena of public opinion than those that employ planes, tanks, and aircraft carriers.

However, it is possible that we will shame the Russians into submission. After all, for a nation stuck using 19th century tactics, it is very doubtful that the Russians, unlike American liberals, are committed to using women on the front lines. An Obama speech on the matter should rile up enough world outrage that the Russians will tuck tail and pull out of Crimea.

If this doesn’t work, the media will still have Obama’s back. If not, phone calls will be made, as they were to the left-wing think tank, Center for American Progress (CAP). It turns out that when CAP bloggers became critical of the Obama administration’s military actions in Afghanistan, senior officials at CAP were contacted by the White House. The bloggers were called on the carpet and “berated for opposing the Afghan war and creating daylight between us and Obama.” Again, no debate will be tolerated.

Adding to the real crisis, the U.S., led by Obama, is basing everything from crippling emissions standards of the EPA to rejection of the job-creating and energy-building Keystone pipeline on the myth of man-made global warming. After all, if elections are to be won based on myth, then sometimes real policy, no matter how devastating, must be pursued.

Also, low, or at least easily lowered, moral standards combined with powerful propaganda weapons make deception much less complicated. This has proven successful since Satan uttered, “Did God really say…” along with “You will not surely die…and you will be like God.”

Without the burden of absolute truth, liberals have been able to convince tens-of-millions of Americans that killing a child in the womb is not only permissible under virtually every circumstance, but a “God-given right.” Such deceit is still common today, even though with modern ultrasound technology and the like, the march of science has revealed what common sense and decent morality already told us: abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

In the fantasy world put forth by liberalism, abortion isn’t the taking of a human life but merely the choice of a woman to do with her body as she pleases. In addition, this makes it easier to promote promiscuity onto young minds and bodies that are eagerly looking for justification to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and as often as they want sexually.

Such sexual “freedom” has also turned marriage into a farce. Thus, in the liberal land of fantasy, marriage can be defined to be whatever a culture wants it to be, as long as the definition is politically popular. Any attempt to limit marriage to a union of one man and one woman can then be labeled as “discrimination,” because liberals prefer the fantasy world of no “discrimination” to the real world where such things must be defined based on some real moral standard.

A world without such “discrimination” also means that we are not to differentiate stereotypically between humans born with a y-chromosome and those born without one. In other words, to require boys to look, act, and behave as boys (and likewise with girls) is “discrimination.” Young boys, then, who want to dress as girls, play girl sports, and use girl restrooms and locker rooms are expected to receive the full support of every institution and person they encounter.

There is no need for real victims of such “discrimination.” They can be manufactured as well. Anyone who has had his same-sex “wedding” ceremony shunned by businesses that don’t want to participate in something they deem sinful can claim “discrimination.” If enough “victims” to sell the myth can’t be found, they can just be completely made up.

“Hate-crime” hoaxes abound with liberals. Whether Matthew Shepherd, the latest campus racial incident, or the new “victims” of transphobia (in the fantasy world occupied by liberals, along with made-up crimes and victims, you need made-up words to help with the preferred narrative), the left can’t seem to help itself as they try to convince us just how corrupt traditional American values are.

Again, if only we could just shake our heads and get on our knees in prayer. However, laws are being passed and lawsuits are being filed. This isn’t about live and let live. This is black and white, right and wrong, myth and reality. Americans need to decide in which world they want to live.

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