New Book

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

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Violent Liberalism Strikes Again (Updated)

Again, guns don’t kill people, liberalism does. With the disturbing attack on congressional republicans who were gathered to practice for a charity baseball game, again we see virtually every perpetrator carrying out a sensational act of violence has one of two things in common: their lives are corrupted by either liberalism or Islam. With prominent American leftists mock-beheading President Trump, celebrating the on-stage assassination of the U.S. President, threatening to blow up the White House, and so on, few should be surprised that a Bernie Sanders supporter—who recently wrote “It’s Time To Destroy Trump & Co.”—armed with a gun, decided actually to carry out his evil liberal fantasy.

As others have already pointed out, the recent rhetoric of the modern left reeks of hate and violence, and as Townhall's Derek Hunter prophetically noted nearly two weeks ago, “The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed.” College campuses, which are replete with radical left-wingers young and old, are becoming more and more violent. In addition, most every protest or parade these days that is significantly populated by liberals almost always devolves into a vulgar hate-fest where angry leftists compete to, among other “nasty” things, see who can lob the most f-bombs.

And when someone corrupted by liberalism finally does take the violent rhetoric to its literal end, the reaction by liberals is as predictable as the sunrise: blame the weapon, usually guns. Just hours after Democratic Socialist James T. Hodgkinson fired dozens of rounds at the GOP baseball team (thankfully killing no one, but seriously injuring Majority Whip Steve Scalise), liberal politicians and pundits began blaming guns. Whether guns, blades, or bombs, when violent liberals and Islamists commit murder, liberals of every stripe ignore the ideology of their like-minded comrades to focus on instruments—especially guns.

As a telling anecdote, on the day of Hodgkinson’s assault against congressional members of the GOP, a comment from a liberal on my website sarcastically declared,
I don’t want to alarm you but there have been four shootings today and apparently none of them involves Islam and…People are saying it’s guns that did the shooting and killing, even though guns don’t kill people as you’ve proven here. I’m so confused!
My reply to the poor confused soul: “When a gun is arrested and charged, please let us know.”

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at such thinking. As modern liberals continue in their “struggle against reality,” with many seemingly unable to determine whether a person is a male or a female, perhaps such liberals are now so far divorced from reality that they can’t tell the difference between a person and a gun. Of course, it could be that I’m behind in my knowledge of the wide variety of ways with which people these days are choosing to “identify” themselves. Under a liberal worldview today, perhaps now it is acceptable for a human being to “identify” as a gun. (The late-great Jerry Clower probably had a story of a Ledbetter who had done such.)

To aid in their gun-control meme following Hodgkinson’s attack, it was not at all uncommon to stumble across the following in the liberal media: “The GOP baseball shooting is the 154th mass shooting this year.” Do a search for the exact phrase and see for yourself. Go here for the full list to which the frequently used headline refers. Granted, almost none of the violence listed is directly politically motivated. However, take note of the locations for the shootings.

As I noted in 2015, almost all deadly gun violence in the U.S. occurs in large cities where liberal politics, policies, and personal practices reign supreme. And as I (and subsequently others) recently noted, most violent criminals in the U.S.—especially those with the largest body counts—have two things in common: broken homes and/or sexual deviancy. Again, as they preach “Do What Thou Wilt” in the sexual realm and wage war on the biblical family model, we find liberals and liberalism complicit.

In addition, another act of dramatic gun violence leaves modern liberals longing for the ever-elusive gun- and religion-clinging right-wing shooter. Of course, the conservative Christian assassin or terrorist toting his rifle, his bombs, and his Bible is nothing more than a hopeful myth perpetually sought out by the left nearly every time one of these despicable events occurs.

And why is it that it is so rare to find an American whose politics is reliably conservative who will react violently as a result of his conservatism? Could it be that, like me, most conservatives in America are conservative in their politics as the result of a relationship with their Creator? Could it be that, because of our relationship with God, and because we are surrounded by loving families led by married mothers and fathers, along with a loving, truth-telling church community, our “moral chains” keep us from such violence? Could it be that most conservatives understand that the real solutions to what plagues us defy a government solution?

Of course those are exactly the reasons the Christian community is virtually devoid of such wicked violence. What’s more, when it comes to politics, most Christians know well that, even when we lose elections, all is not lost. We always have hope that whether in this world or the next, there are brighter days ahead. This stands in stark contrast to those who have made a god of government.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Guns Don’t Kill People, Liberalism and Radical Islam Do

After the recent attack on Manchester by Islamic terrorists, British author and journalist Douglas Murray provided a simple two-word suggestion for what help prevent future such violence in Great Britain: “less Islam.” To bolster his point, Murray pointed out that, “countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have very little Islam and very little Islamic terror. By contrast, France has a great amount of Islam and a great amount of Islamic terror.” Of course, Islamic apologists “promptly went bananas” (Murray’s words).

As we have seen for years now, and as recent events again demonstrate, “Islamic apologists” include not only those deceived by Islam, but also includes those deceived by liberalism as well. I say again, there are few greater threats to life, limb, and liberty in the world today than liberalism and Islam. Radical Islamists drive the vans, pull the triggers, slash the knives, strap on the bombs, cut off the heads, and so on, while radical liberals in the media and the state houses—among other dastardly and deadly things—provide the political cover for the slaughter to continue.

In spite of the obvious differences in their worldviews—the “Do What Thou Wilt” godless philosophy that dominates in modern liberalism vs. a rigid, uncompromising (and man-designed) religious code that dominates radical Islam—both share a common trait that deceives one (liberals) into thinking that the other (radical Islam) can be “tolerated:” a disdain for Christianity.

Millions of Christians and other such “apostates” (tens of millions by some estimates) continue to die at the hands of Islamists. For one of the worst examples (one the media often ignores), according to Africa: The Holocausts of Rwanda and Sudan,
Well over two million southern black Christians, Muslims, and animists in the Sudan have died, the great majority civilians, in a genocide that few in the world have heard about. Since 1983, ethnic cleansing and a religious holy jihad (since 1992) have created a holocaust that rival the two great genocides in Europe (the Holocaust and Stalin’s Gulag)…In the Nuba Mountains the Arab Muslim fundamentalists practiced an age-old custom of taking blacks into slavery, forcing conversion of many to Islam, and then decided to wipe out the fifty tribes by genocide, similar to the situation in Darfur in the west.
Tragically, modern liberals are so desperate to rid the world of Christians and Christianity that they will tolerate almost anything, except authentic Christianity. What’s more, as the violence from radical Islamists rages on (and on, and on), time and again, liberal pundits and politicians, as they are forced to address the bloodshed—and after even their own are murdered—go to absurd lengths to avoid even the hint of a mention of Islam. As Daniel Greenfield put it after knife-wielding Muslims rampaged London, “Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, ‘This is for Islam.’”

Of course, after yet another round of killing in the name of Islam, godless liberals also give us the obligatory—and lazily idiotic assertion that—when it comes to “violence in the name of religion” the “Christians did it too!” To liberals, all religious extremists are equal, though, when one honestly compares radical Christianity with radical Islam, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, when it comes to killing the innocent, violent religious extremists of any flavor could learn a thing or two from the violent anti-religious extremists that dominate the modern left. The greatest murderers in the history of humanity were the godless socialists and communists of the 20th century. As renowned scholar, educator, and author Walter E. Williams notes,
Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China’s communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii professor Rudolph J. Rummel’s website and in his book “Death by Government.”
Multiple sources, including professor Rummel, conclude that, in the past century, atheistic regimes worldwide have led to the deaths of tens-of-millions, with some sound estimates putting the total number of deaths at more than 250,000,000!

Very often, the drive to kill was an effort to purge religion—especially Christianity—from the state. Even Wikipedia notes that the slaughter in the Soviet Union started with multiple “anti-religious” campaigns that began in the early 1920s, where “new legislation…severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism.” In 1937 alone, more than 85,000 Russian Orthodox priests were executed.

Though there are certainly distinctions between the godless socialists and communists of the 20th century and the European and North American liberals of today, there are also very scary similarities. In his mid-19th century Critique of Socialism, Alexis de Tocqueville summarized well the ideology of socialism when he wrote,
They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom [a medieval form of bondage].
Sounds much like the efforts of modern liberals doesn’t it? And even when they claim to be champions of “personal freedom”—as is often their cry when it comes to everything to do with matters in the sexual realm—modern liberalism is still filled with violence and bondage. With nearly 60 million unborn children killed since 1973, U.S. abortion-supporting liberals must be the envy of genocidal maniacs the world over. American abortionists have managed to turn what should be one of the safest places in the universe—a mother’s womb—into a killing field. Worldwide, since 1980, a staggering 1.5 billion children have been aborted.

In addition, guided by the false belief that “Do What Thou Wilt” (especially in the sexual realm) frees us from the shackles of the “antiquated” ideas on morality and personal ethical behavior, liberalism has set about to discredit and abandon many of the eternal and inescapable absolute truths set down by our Creator that should be the cornerstones of all good government. Thus, almost any sexual perversion imaginable is, in the U.S. today, a “right.” And instead of being free, tens of millions of Americans are now slaves to their sexual desires. As a result, STD rates in the U.S. have reached record, epidemic rates.

Of course, just as there are many Muslims who are not terrorists, there are many liberals who are not Christian-hating, terrorist-tolerating, sex-crazed abortionists. However, just as the world’s greatest problem with violent terrorism lies within Islam, the world’s biggest problem with godless, pleasure-peddling statists lies within liberalism.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Nancy Pelosi: Hypocrite Extraordinaire

In the Sermon on the Mount, warning His listeners against hypocrisy, Jesus declared:
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Blind to the logs in her own eyes, false prophetess Nancy Pelosi concluded that President Trump’s wise decision to withdraw the United States from the corrupt Paris climate accord dishonored God and was a “disservice” to his children and grandchildren. In other words, in her weekly press conference, a woman who for decades has defended and promoted the practice of killing children in the womb, decided to lecture the President of the United States, and the country at large, on what dishonors God.

Why would anyone trust anything Nancy Pelosi said about "dishonor" or God?

In a sad attempt to push the economically devastating climate agenda of the modern left, a woman who is a destroyer of marriage as God gave it to us, and who is a staunch supporter of the perverse homosexual agenda used the phrase “moral responsibility” four times in the span of seven sentences. Is there a politician in all of the United States less qualified to discuss "moral responsibility" than Nancy Pelosi? 

Furthermore, a woman who is a leader in the political party that, all of a sudden, can’t seem to decide what is a male and what is a female, wants us to buy what she and her party are attempting to sell us about the magnificently complex matter of global climate science. Here's a hint libs: If you want people to take you seriously when discussing the climate, how about stop ignoring biology that has been clear for time immemorial?

Of course, her liberal pals joined her in her hypocrisy, whining and wailing about President Trump’s climate conclusion. For many of them it was truly a pathetic display of the worst hyperbole. This shtick by the climate faithful is really beginning to wear thin, but if nothing else, it again reminds us why Mr. Trump won.

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, June 2, 2017

Zuckerberg vs. Zuckerberg

Would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2017—who recently gave the commencement address at Harvard—have started Facebook? Likewise, would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2004—who was instrumental in building the world’s largest, most popular social networking website in the world—have given the 2017 commencement address at Harvard University?

As has been well documented over the last several days—most notably by Rush Limbaugh—Zuckerberg’s 2017 commencement address was laden with socialistic language and ideas that run quite contrary to what is necessary to build a company with thousands of employees and whose annual revenue is measured in billions of dollars. (Ask Venezuelans.)

For example, 2017 Mark Zuckerberg told Harvard graduates that it’s time we get about “redefining equality to give everyone the freedom they need to pursue purpose.” Yet the 2003-2004 Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t too keen on the notion of “equality” when he intentionally delayed a social networking project—Harvard Connection—he had agreed to work on for fellow classmates while a student at Harvard—the project that at least gave him some of his inspiration for Facebook—in order to complete first his own personal project that would directly compete with his classmates’ project.

As Zuckerberg would declare to classmate Eduardo Saverin in an IM (instant message):
Check this site out: and then go to Someone is already trying to make a dating site. But they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the facebook thing comes out.
In another IM exchange with his high school friend Adam D’Angelo, Zuckerberg would reveal that he was contemplating whether he was going to “f*ck the dating site [a reference to Harvard Connect] people over and quit on them right before I told them I’d have it done.” In the same IM exchange, weighing whether to complete Harvard Connect, Zuckerberg declared,
I also hate the fact that I'm doing it for other people haha. Like I hate working under other people. I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I’m supposed to have their thing ready and then be like “look yours isn’t as good as this so if you want to join mine you can…otherwise I can help you with yours later.”
Weeks later, just prior to meeting with the Harvard Connect people, in another IM with a friend, Zuckerberg reveals how he has decided to resolve his conflict with the competing projects:
Friend: So have you decided what you're going to do about the websites?
Zuck: Yeah, I'm going to f*ck them
How very corporately ruthless of him. In other words, the very project that made Mr. Zuckerberg tremendously wealthy and famous, the project that allowed him—a Harvard dropout—the opportunity to give Harvard’s 2017 commencement address was not born out of some leftist notion of “equality.” Of course, Zuckerberg’s personal project would become Facebook and would quickly spell the end of Harvard Connection (later ConnectU) and all similar social networking websites. Not very “equal,” huh?

The story of Facebook’s founding and the relationship between Zuckerberg, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra is well documented and simply does not jive with socialist drivel Zuckerberg spewed in his recent Harvard address. In case you were unaware, or have forgotten, Zuckerberg’s conflict with his competing Harvard classmates went on for years, well past 2004 and the launch of Facebook and the now defunct Harvard Connect.

To this day, Zuckerberg—rightfully so, I think—rejects the notion that he “stole” the idea and any “source code” for Facebook from the Harvard Connect project, and that Winklevoss twins and Narendra are (or were) somehow “equal” partners in Facebook. (Though they were not recognized as “equal” partners in Facebook, because of their lawsuit against Zuckerberg and Facebook, and a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars, the Winklevoss twins and Narendra also made out quite well, themselves.)

Yet, it wasn’t only against the Winklevoss twins and Mr. Narendra that Mr. Zuckerberg acted rather “capitalistically.” In early 2004, prior to the February 4 launch of what was then “,” Zuckerberg acknowledged that, because he thought it would (GASP!) “make money,” another fellow Harvard classmate—Eduardo Saverin—provided $15,000 for the original servers necessary for Saverin’s initial investment netted him a 30% stake in the project.

According to Business Insider, “By April, the site was doing so well that Mark, Eduardo, and a third Harvard sophomore named Dustin Muskovitz formed The Facebook as a limited-liability company (LLC) under Florida law.” In June of 2004, Zuckerberg and Muskovitz dropped out of Harvard and moved to Palo Alto, California to work on full time. Saverin remained at Harvard and was to work on three things: “to set up the company, get funding, and make a business model.”

The relationship between and Saverin quickly cooled. It was the issue of funding that defined the divide between Zuckerberg and Saverin. Soon after arriving in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg and Muskovitz ran into Sean Parker. Parker was best known for cofounding Napster, the extremely popular internet file-sharing (especially music) service. Parker was soon installed as TheFacebook’s president. His chief responsibility was to do what Saverin apparently wasn’t: find investors.

Parker secured Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal, as TheFacebook’s first big investor. Thiel put up $500,000 and Saverin was deemed “expendable.” To rid themselves of Saverin, Parker proposed Zuckerberg employ some “dirty tricks” used by Thiel and other well-known big-time tech investors. Zuckerberg agreed.

The plan, again, according to Business Insider:
Reduce Eduardo's stake in by creating a new company, a Delaware corporation, to acquire the old company (the Florida LLC formed in April), and then distribute new shares in the new company to everybody but Eduardo.
Very much in line with the idea of “wealth inequality”—and quite contrary to Zuckerberg’s Harvard address—the plan was carried out and Saverin’s stake in the company went from 30% to less than 10%. As Business Insider put it, “Mark’s plan had succeeded. Eduardo was, for all intents and purposes, gone.”

Whatever or whoever Mr. Zuckerberg is today, his Harvard speech was anything but surprising. If it wasn’t already so, Zuckerberg has now made clear that—after having employed and personally benefitted from the forces of capitalism—what worked for him is not for everyone else. He is firmly entrenched in the long and growing list of modern liberal-activist CEOs who feel, as Kevin Williamson recently put it, “obliged to act as public intellectuals as well as business managers.” The main job of these “public intellectuals” is to promote the liberal agenda—especially when it comes to the moral issues.

As Williamson also notes—and as Zuckerberg makes clear—many of our modern capitalists are “not much interested in defending the culture of capitalism,” but instead favor a “collectivist view of the world.” Of course, this view also embraces the notion that political power should rest in the hands of the “progressive” few. After all, “The decisions they have made for themselves have turned out well, so why not empower them, or men like them, to make decisions for other people, too?”

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, May 26, 2017

“Transgender” Tragedy and Media Malpractice

For those whose thinking has been slowed or hindered by liberalism: It turns out that mutilating your body in order to satisfy some demented desire to change your sex simply because you feel like it can have deadly consequences.

Recently in my home state of Georgia, a 25-year-old woman—Rebeccah Feldhaus—who was in the process of “transitioning” to a man—which is, of course, impossible—died of sepsis after complications from a hysterectomy. According to the Augusta Chronicle, Feldhaus’ hysterectomy was necessary to treat her polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Among other things, PCOS often results in extra facial and body hair, acne, and infertility. According to WebMD, PCOS typically occurs when women’s ovaries produce excess amounts of androgens (male sex hormones). Of course, Miss Feldhaus had elevated levels of androgen—along with the typical complications that arise from excess androgen that led to the necessity for surgery—because she was receiving testosterone (a type of androgen) shots in order to aid in her “transition” to becoming a man.

In other words, Feldhaus wasn’t having her uterus removed simply as a means of female to male “sex reassignment surgery”—which is typical in such a surgery. Her procedure was medically necessary because of how she was mistreating her body in order to satisfy her delusions that she was a man. As I’ve noted before, the complications Feldhaus experienced are not at all uncommon.

Athletes—especially female—of the once dominant, but now non-existent East German Olympic team, paid a terrible price for the widespread and frequent use of performance enhancing drugs—mostly synthetic testosterone. As The Daily Mirror reported in 2015,
The stars of yesterday suffered severe depression, heart conditions, degenerative bone disease and infertility. Some even changed sex because of the drugs. Many spiraled into drink and drug addictions, unable to find work.
Shot putter Heidi Krieger suffered the loss of her femininity. She had a “sex-change” operation (again, impossible) and now lives her life pretending she’s a man, “teaching youngsters the dangers of pumping steroids in a bid for sporting glory.” Concerned that the current situation with Olympic athletes in Russia mirrors that of East Germany, Ines Geipel, 55, a 1980s East German champion sprinter, warns:
It is more than 25 years ago now and yet there are so many parallels with the Russian situation and ours. It is about a state-controlled abuse. 
It carried on until 1989. We are probably talking about 10 to 15,000 athletes in total. We saw kids as young as eight being doped. They were guinea pigs and we have seen the health impact down the generations, passed from grandfather to grandchild. 
The bodies are broken, and so are the souls. Naturally there was great gynaecological damage because the women were taking men’s hormones. We have seen still births, infertility, disabled children born to former athletes.
In spite of what sound science and, what used to be good common sense, reveals, in today’s “mixed up, muddled up, shook up world,” humans who mutilate their bodies in a desperate desire to achieve the impossible are rarely presented with facts, correction, and redirection. Instead, they are celebrated as “brave” and encouraged to “be who you are.” Tragically, this was certainly the case with Miss Feldhaus.

Feldhaus—an Augusta University student, Army reservist, and board member of the homosexual and transgender advocacy group Georgia Equality—first made headlines in Georgia last year when a state Superior Court Judge denied her request for a name change. Naturally, the mainstream media and social media jumped all over such blatant “discrimination.” Since she first made news, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution (AJC)—the largest newspaper in Georgia—has run multiple favorable articles on behalf of Feldhaus and the perverse transgender cause.

One story went so far as to glowingly highlight children as young as three years old whose “bodies don’t match their gender identity” and whose parents have chosen to indulge childhood—and childish—fantasies. And “indulge” includes putting kids as young as 12—with additional discussion on beginning as early as 9—on powerful “puberty blockers.” Even the transgender-apologetic article admits, there is “scarce” data on the use of such blockers, but no caution is urged.

The article also mentioned a St. Louis family who indulged their seven-year-old daughter’s desire to begin puberty blockers “when the time came.” According to the piece, when the girl (of course, the article says “boy”) turned 11 last year, “a pediatric endocrinologist prescribed the sex hormone suppressor Eligard, an injection that he [she—because, if she was indeed a “he” then “he” wouldn’t need such drugs] receives every four months.”

The piece goes on to lament how difficult it is to get insurance companies to pay for such treatments. Pro-perversion lawyers, lawmakers, and judges are lining up to put an end to this “discrimination” as well. This LGBT health insurance madness has gone so far that we now have homosexual couples demanding infertility coverage—because, you know, no matter how often they try, two men “mating” or two women “mating” just can’t seem to make a baby!

Instead of reporting this madness for what it is, and ignoring all sound science and morality, the media is helping to spread virtually every absurd idea spawned by the LGBT agenda—even as people are dying. When Miss Feldhaus died, the AJC report on her death was suspiciously silent about the details of her death. A subsequent article mentioned the hysterectomy in the following sentence:
Feldhaus had a hysterectomy, WRDW-TV reported, and a few days later went into septic shock and lost oxygen to his brain.
Did you catch that? It was “his” “hysterectomy.” In an article about a human being dying as the result of complications from a hysterectomy, a major media outlet in the United States—the envy of the world when it comes to science, information, and education—used a male noun or pronoun to describe said human being ten times! Forget the malpractice involved by not discussing the dangers of Feldhaus’ lifestyle choices that led to her death, how about at least not medically contradicting a procedure that’s been around for a century-and-a-half, and is “the most common non–pregnancy-related major surgery performed on women in the United States?”

Yet, this is where we are with the media (another reason to “Impeach the Left-Wing Media”) and the LGBT agenda. Even in the face of disease and death, even with the lives of children at stake, we can’t get the truth. This is what Miss Feldhaus deserved. This is what she needed. And if she had been told the truth, maybe, just maybe, she would be alive today.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Lying Jon Ossoff is Unfit for Office

The most expensive congressional race in U.S. history has again dispelled the myth that conservatives are the aggressors in the moral wars that plague our politics. As Kyle Wingfield of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution recently pointed out, in the race to replace Tom Price in Georgia’s 6th congressional district, it was only a matter of time before Jon Ossoff went after Karen Handel for her brief experience at the Susan G. Komen organization. And like almost every other liberal when it comes to matters involving abortion, Ossoff lied.

The ad uses an OB-GYN corrupted by liberalism—Mindy Fine from Cobb County, Georgia —who falsely claims that Handel “cut off funding for Planned Parenthood cancer screenings when she was an executive at Susann G. Komen.” Fine goes on to say that Handel’s actions in her short stint at the cancer charity as “unforgivable.”

Fine is referencing a much-publicized incident that occurred in early 2012. At that time, Handel—fresh off a failed run for governor of Georgia—was Komen’s newly hired Senior Vice President for Public Policy. In late January of 2012, Komen, the largest breast cancer organization in the U.S., announced that they would not be renewing financial grants to Planned Parenthood. At the time, Komen claimed this was the result of Planned Parenthood being under congressional investigation.

Of course, as they so often do when they sense their “sacred” sacrament of abortion under attack, liberals across the U.S. went full-on donkey-dung crazy (and as I noted at the time, Komen later caved). Most of the blame for ending the grants was laid at the feet of Handel. Article after article, column after column (interesting experiment: do a “custom range” Google search for Karen Handel and Komen for early 2012 and note the liberal outlets that show up) claimed that Handel and Komen were pulling funds that provided tens-of-thousands of “clinical breast exams to low-income and uninsured women.”

Claims of “clinical breast exams” and “cancer screenings” often lead to the oft-repeated lie that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. This is a lie that refuses to die. President Obama himself repeated the lie on national TV in late 2012. After repeated debunkings by the likes of even the liberals at the Washington Post (and by Handel herself), liberals today, such as those at MSNBC and Senator Chuck Schumer, continue to repeat the lie that Planned Parenthood performs mammograms. As his campaign openly supports the mission of Planned Parenthood, almost certainly the Ossoff campaign is hoping to perpetuate this lie.

In addition, according to various sources, including Handel’s book on the incident, the decision to “cut off funding” of Planned Parenthood was far from Handel’s alone—as the Ossoff ad implies—and had been in the works for years. Komen’s CEO at the time, Nancy Brinker, said, “Karen did not have anything to do with this decision. This was decided by the board level and by our mission.” The Atlanta-Journal Constitution article referenced by the “Unforgivable” ad mentions only internet “speculation” that Handel was even involved in the Komen decision to pull Planned Parenthood grants.

Ossoff’s Handel-Komen lies come on the heels of his national security credential lies. As The Washington Free Beacon noted back in March of this year, “After claiming for months he had five years of experience as a congressional national security staffer with top-secret clearance, Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff has now admitted that he had clearance for just five months.” This lie helped carry Ossoff into his June 20 runoff with Handel.

In addition to his lies, Ossoff also seems to have an issue with commitment. As folks down here in Georgia put it, Ossoff is “shacked-up” with his girlfriend of 12 years. He told CNN, “I've been living with Alicia, my girlfriend of 12 years, down by Emory University where she's a full-time medical student. ... I want to support her in her career and do right by her.” Of course, “doing right by her” would mean marrying her, but again we see, liberals have long had a hard time discerning what is “doing right.”

As I noted a half-dozen years ago, corrupted by the “values” of modern liberalism, the current generation in America is shunning marriage for cohabitation at an unprecedented rate. As sound morality as long taught us—which Mr. Ossoff seems blind to—such irresponsible and selfish behavior by adults is disastrous for children.

According to a recent study by the Brookings Institution, “U.S. children born to cohabiting parents are twice as likely to see their parents’ relationship end compared to children born to married parents.” According to Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, children who live with their cohabitating biological parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused and they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents.

Unsurprisingly, Ossoff’s “Priorities” page on his campaign website makes little, if any, mention of marriage, families, or children, but he does support the “right to choose” to kill the most helpless and innocent among us. In addition to his campaign lies, when it comes to two of the most important moral issues of our time—life in the womb and marriage—Ossoff fails badly at both. If elected, almost certainly he would support the radical liberal agenda when it comes to what is marriage, what is a human being, what is a male and a female, and so on. Thus, like most every other modern liberal, he is unfit for public office. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Friday, May 19, 2017

More Sad, Disgusting, Rotten Fruit of Liberalism

If you needed more proof, here you are:

New York’s Brooklyn Public Library in Park Slope is now hosting "Drag Queen Story Hour." A recent reader was a fool who calls himself "Lil Miss Hot Mess:"

The book he's reading in the above photo is entitled “Worm Loves Worm.” A description of the book reveals that “when a worm meets a special worm and they fall in love, you know what happens next: They get married! But their friends want to know—who will wear the dress? And who will wear the tux?” The answer? “It doesn’t matter. Because Worm loves worm.” Lil Miss Hot Mess (I prefer "Sad Lost Fool") at one point says, “We can both be grooms!”

Sad Lost Fool later asks his toddler audience “Who wants to be a drag queen when they grow up?” Notice the woman in the background encouraging the children to answer in the affirmative: 

An employee of the Brooklyn Public Library, Kat Savage, told The Associated Press, “Drag Queen Story Hour is fantastic because it addresses all of these issues of gender fluidity and self acceptance and all of these topics that … are real — are very, very real.” Of course, the corrupted by liberalism parents present think this is a great idea as well. 

Not to be outdone, this crap is happening in San Francisco as well. In any sane, God-fearing culture, every adult involved in these sad, sorry episodes would be arrested, and the children placed in decent homes. Again, this is what happens when liberals are in charge, and the truth is ignored. 

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

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Impeach the Left-Wing Media (Updated to Include Charges Concerning Islam)

In order to remove the U.S. President, Vice President, federal judges, and other federal officials from office, Article I, Section II of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. House of Representatives “the sole Power of Impeachment.” Article I, Section III gives the U.S. Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” In the history of the United States, the U.S. House has initiated impeachment proceedings dozens of times; however, only 19 individuals have faced actual Articles of Impeachment.

Most of these 19 were judges, and most were acquitted or resigned from office before facing trial in the Senate. All, save two, were impeached for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In addition to the charges of bribery and treason, George Mason, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention who is known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” proposed adding the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as cause for removing executive and judicial officials from federal office.

For a better understanding of how our founders viewed high crimes and misdemeanors, the Federalist Papers provide insight. In Federalist 65, to explain impeachable offenses, Alexander Hamilton wrote of
those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
In other words—as just about any sentient adult who was alive in the late 1990s well knows—impeachment is a political, not a criminal, process. A person or persons can be impeached, whether or not their actions are technically criminal. And though the word “impeachment” almost always implies the removal of a public official from office, to “impeach” simply means “to challenge the credibility of; to bring an accusation against; to call into question; or to cast an imputation upon.” (Which is exactly what happens to an “impeached” individual at his “trial.”)

As Hamilton makes clear, those “public men” who have abused or violated the public trust, and whose actions are injurious to society itself must be impeached. I submit to you that no one in our society today is more worthy of impeachment than the liberal members of the American mainstream media whose offensive “misconduct”—almost always resulting in political injury—has grievously poisoned our culture.

For decades now, in violation of the public trust, liberals in the American mainstream media—including the news, information, and entertainment media—have willfully corrupted the values and institutions that made the United States of America into the greatest nation in the history of humanity. Their lies and immorality have wrought havoc on families, churches, schools, businesses, corporations, governments, and so on.

Contrary to their sacred duty to provide what is truthful, they have willfully presented false and misleading information to the public at large concerning, but not limited to, the following:

  1. The role of good government—especially in most every fiscal matter. With the United States government nearly $20 trillion in debt, liberals in the media continue to promote an ever-growing Welfare State. Whether health care, housing, food, retirement income, education, cell phones, and so on, media liberals continue to misinform the electorate that such things are a “right” and thus we must demand them from our government. In doing so, media liberals have trampled the Constitution and ignored the warning and instruction of men like President Grover Cleveland—a democrat—in the late 19th century when he declared, “once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again…It is the responsibility of citizens to support their government. It is not the responsibility of government to support its citizens.”
  2. The election of democrats over republicans. This is especially disconcerting when it comes to the news media. Violating the Journalists Creed where it declares that “a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all,” for over a half-century now, the liberal news media—which constitutes the vast majority of the news media—has deliberately deceived the voting public in order to see democrats elected. This is perhaps never more true and clear than in the recent election of the GOP’s Donald Trump over the democrats’ Hillary Clinton. Even after the historic democrat losses in the 2016 election, the liberal news media continues to create “fake news” in order to prop up democrats and undermine republicans. What’s more, barely 100 days into office, the liberal American media is clamoring for the impeachment of President Trump, while for months and years they have ignored or played down the corruption of his presidential election opponent, Hillary Clinton, which includes: “the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.”
  3. The nature and details concerning radical Islam and Islam in general. In spite of the continued carnage (Manchester is the latest tragic episode), liberals in the media continue to paint Islam as a “peaceful religion,” and radical Islam as nothing much of a going concern. As I’ve noted multiple times, with significant detail: Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a very violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backward. Any politician, pundit, or journalist who attempts to paint Islam or Islamic nations in a positive light is at the least not giving the whole picture, and is at the worst, a political and moral coward.
  4. The nature and details of the relationship of the burning of fossil fuels as it relates to global climate change—specifically what is often referred to as “global warming.” In addition to hyping the at least suspicious “science” of climate change, media liberals have aided and abetted those who have falsely declared that “the debate is over” and that a left-wing big-government agenda must be pursued in order to achieve what is humanly impossible: halting climate change.
  5. The nature and role of sound immigration policy. In order to elect more liberals to political office, the liberal American media has pushed an open-borders policy that threatens the safety, security, and economy of the United States of America. Historically, the United States is the friendliest nation in the world towards immigrants. However, far from simply promoting assimilation and the accurate idea that America is the “land of opportunity,” the liberal media has promoted the false notion that it is the responsibility of American citizens to provide immigrants—legal and illegal—with “free” food, housing, education, and the like.
  6. Whether through pornography or the promotion of fornication, adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, and the like, media liberals have grossly misled the public when it comes to right and proper behavior in all things sexual. The perverse lie that any sexual activity is permissible as long as it occurs between “consenting adults” has resulted in widespread tragic consequences, including: the rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases, rampant divorce, over 40% of all U.S. births out of wedlock, the deaths of tens of millions of helpless children in what should be one of safest places in the universe: their mother’s womb.
  7. The nature and details of life in the womb. In order to justify abortion (and, as logic dictates, the “right” to have sex without consequences), media liberals have aided and abetted the many lies of the abortion industry. To justify the slaughter of tens of millions of children in the womb, abortion apologists in the American media have long used the de-humanizing language employed by no less than the Nazis.
  8. The nature and details of what is marriage. In defiance of the vast majority of the American electorate—in addition to sound science and clear, long standing morality—and in support of the perverse homosexual (LGBT) agenda, the liberal American media helped bring about the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity.
  9. The nature and details of what is a male and a female. In further support of the madness and perversion that is the LGBT agenda, the liberal American media is engaged in perhaps their strangest effort yet. In defiance of what is plain to most, they—including even the sports media (who, perhaps more than most, should know better), and aided by no less than the former President of the United States, Barack Obama—have promoted the insanely foolish notion that one’s sex (gender) is mutable. 
Wherefore, the liberal American media, by such conduct, warrants impeachment, removal from their offices, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office or position of information, entertainment, honor, trust or profit under the United States.

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

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Andrew Sullivan: Defining Decency Down

A word on Andrew Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan—a fake conservative—recently penned his displeasure with the GOP bill that (barely) repeals and replaces Obamacare. I know. No one should be surprised that an HIV-positive unrepentant homosexual who’s “married” to another man, and who once advertised for multiple-partner unprotected sex, is displeased with republican legislation on health care. Sullivan’s criticisms aren’t anything new, but he does provide an interesting look into the liberal mindset when it comes to the role of government and what is “decent.”

Sullivan—in spite of living a life that is quite contradictory to both—has long claimed to be a conservative and a Christian. After the GOP-led House took the first steps toward officially giving Obamacare its well-deserved legislative funeral, Sullivan wrote,
You might think Obamacare would violate my generally conservative principles, but it didn’t. In fact, it seemed to me to be an effective marriage of conservative principles and, well, human decency.
I know well the hypocrisy of those corrupted by liberalism, but Sullivan’s efforts warrant an award, or perhaps even to have an award named after him: The Sullivan Award—for hypocrisy above and beyond usual liberal standards. Talk about defining decency down. Seriously, how does a man so selfishly devoted to perversion, and who has worked harder than most at destroying the oldest institution in the history of humanity—the foundation upon which virtually every other human institution rests—make implicating complaints about the lack of “human decency?”

How “decent” is it, not only to deceive when it comes to the hedonistic and dangerous homosexual lifestyle, but to shamelessly promote such a lifestyle? How “decent” is it to deprive helpless children of a mother or a father? How “decent” is it to support a healthcare law that attempts to force coverage of abortion and “transgender” services upon those who want nothing to do with such horrific acts?

In touting the “decency” of Obamacare, Mr. Sullivan notes how Obama’s signature legislative achievement allowed him (Sullivan), a man “living with the preexisting condition of HIV…far more independence and freedom.” The independence and freedom Sullivan celebrates surrounds his career. He writes,
[Obamacare] gave me the confidence to quit a previous job and start my own little media company — my blog, the Dish. It gave me peace of mind when I subsequently shut that business down and was able to stay on the same plan. It allowed me to be a freelance writer without fear of personal bankruptcy. I got no subsidy, but I was glad to pay the premiums for me and my husband because it gave me a sense of control over our finances and our future.
How ignorantly ironic. As in the case in the same-sex “marriage” debate, the “independence and freedom” touted by Sullivan comes at the expense of the independence and freedom of others. As has been chronicled for years now, Christians across the U.S. have been harassed, sued, fined, lost their jobs, lost their businesses, and so on, because they wouldn’t tow the liberal line on marriage and Obamacare. Just how “free” or “independent” is anyone when the government is forcing you to participate in something you want no part of or to purchase something (often very expensive) that you don’t want, don’t need, and in many cases, will never use?

In addition, Mr. Sullivan adds, “The decency part comes from not blaming or punishing the sick for their condition.” Of course, this is an indirect reference to the oft-repeated—but almost always incorrect—“republicans don’t care about those with pre-existing conditions” argument. It should go without saying that all “pre-existing conditions” are not equal. (Why can the companies that insure our automobiles factor in our “pre-existing” speeding tickets or traffic accidents?)

In other words, the pre-existing condition (HIV) that plagues Mr. Sullivan, is strictly due to his promiscuous and perverse sexual activity. But, of course, as Mr. Sullivan would have us believe—and as David French at National Review recently (with apt and sharp sarcasm) pointed out—no one should be blamed or punished (with higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs) for such behaviors. To do so is just not “decent.”

In further support of Obamacare, and with more stunning ignorance and hypocrisy, Mr. Sullivan asserts that “mandating individual coverage”—as does Obamacare—“insists on personal responsibility.” In other words, it’s okay to insist on personal responsibility when it comes to purchasing one’s Obamacare plan, but not when it comes to personal behavior that might reduce one’s need for medical care. Just how much are we encouraging “responsibility” if we allow people who regularly engage in unhealthy behaviors to force the rest of us to supplement their health care costs?

And no one can be considered “responsible” when their actions are “mandated” by the full force of the federal government. Otherwise, those guys in the white or orange uniforms often seen picking up trash on the side of the road would be considered some of the most responsible people in our society. For a man willing to redefine decency, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at a redefinition of “personal responsibility” as well.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Liberals, Scientism, and the Politics of Pleasure

Behold the anthem of modern liberalism (Though you’ve probably already seen it, WARNING: vulgar and insanely stupid. After viewing, you’ll probably want to shower, pray, and spend some time with a Rubik’s Cube.):

So I now know who Rachel Bloom is. Tragically, I can’t imagine a worse introduction. As a result of this sorry, sad, sick episode (everyone involved should be forced to turn in any degrees or diplomas they possess), this video, Nye, and Bloom have all been thoroughly—and deservedly—ridiculed. That’s what happens when one surrenders three whole minutes of a television program—that is supposedly devoted to “exploring scientific issues”—to a segment that appears to have been written, produced, and choreographed by delinquent 12 year-olds. (Please tell me they are the only ones who will do that.)

Nevertheless, no one who pays much attention to the words and works of liberalism should be too surprised by this. Though, admittedly, I think most of today’s liberals wouldn’t allow themselves participation in such blatant, cartoonish, stupidity. (If this is not the case, the country’s in even worse shape than I imagined.) I suppose Nye and Bloom’s efforts are just further evidence that we are indeed a culture nearly bereft of shame.

Equally shameful were the recent actions of a Philadelphia public high school assistant principal. After encountering a couple of pro-life teenagers on a public sidewalk outside the school where he works, Zach Ruff—dean of academics and student life at STEM Academy in Downingtown, PA—became unhinged. Ruff did not like his students being presented with a biblical, pro-life message. Upon seeing posters of aborted children, Ruff told the young pro-life messengers—16-year-old Conner Haines and his 19-year-old sister Lauren—“They’re not children, they’re cells! ...You’re at a science-based school, those are cells!”

When Conner Haines mentioned Jesus, repentance, and the forgiveness of sin, Ruff called the Bible a “book of fiction” and yelled, “Public school, we don’t believe in that here!” Ruff added, “I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what you think Jesus tells me and what I should and should not be doing.” Ruff went so far as to wag his finger in Conner’s face and said, “Shut your mouth and don’t talk to my students. You do not have permission to speak and engage.”

Wow. How “tolerant.”

Imagine that. Another liberal screaming at conservatives to shut-up. I wonder if Ruff ever attended UC Berkeley. Do you think he believes Rachel Bloom and Bill Nye have “permission” to spew their filth? And take note of his profound grasp of “science.” According to the latest spokesman for “the party of science,” this is not a child.

Nearly as stupid as Nye’s video—but perhaps more shocking considering the source—is a new Harvard University “factsheet” on gender dysphoria that is urging students to “fight transphobia.” The propaganda piece declares “Get the facts about gender diversity.” Some of the “facts” it presents:
[G]ender expression, identity, and self-understanding can change from day to day… gender can be expressed through any, all, and/or none of the following ways: speech, mannerisms, clothing, reflecting on one's gender identity, sharing one's gender identity with family, friends, and/or co-workers, make-up, grooming, name and/or sex on legal documents, hormone therapy, and surgery…there are more than two sexes.
The piece concludes by implying that failure to comply and call people by their preferred name or pronoun is a “form of systemic violence.” How ironic. Campus liberals complaining about violence.

Notice again how the issues surrounding sex and sexuality lead liberals to absurd behaviors. Because of the ongoing debates over the moral issues in our culture, liberals often like to paint conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—as prudes obsessed with sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Christians nor conservatives (of course, not mutually exclusive) picked the fights over abortion, homosexuality, marriage, gender, and so on. Not so long ago, for the most part, our culture and our laws reflected sound moral thinking on such issues. It was only after loud, vocal, and well-funded liberals decided that we must abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic on such matters and fight for the “right” (as Bloom sang: Sex how you want it, it’s your g-dd-mn right!) to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm that we have found our country mired in debating what was once clearly understood: it’s wrong to kill a child in the womb, the only rightful place for sex is within marriage, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, one’s gender is biological and fixed, and so on.

For decades now, liberals have focused much of their perverse political efforts on these matters, and when possible—with real science, it’s getting harder to deny the reality of things such as life in the womb—cloaked such politics with so-called “science.” As I noted (more than once) several years ago, Nye and those like-minded aren’t devoted to science, they are adherents of “scientism.” As I said in 2013, scientism is not science, it is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority. Scientism is best described as a false religion, with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on.

For far too many liberals, science isn’t an end unto itself. In other words, too often liberals aren’t looking for answers, they’re looking for an excuse or an opportunity to further the perverse (or big government) liberal agenda. Thus, “science” becomes merely a means to a political end.

For this reason, C.S. Lewis warned, “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent.” Much of the “science” championed by the modern left drips with pretentions. And whether the global warming agenda, the LGBT agenda, the abortion agenda, the education agenda, the socialist agenda, and so on, tyranny looms behind virtually every political effort of today’s left that purports to be supported by “science.”

Exhibits A, B, and C of this tyranny are the litigious homosexual community vengefully suing Christians who don’t want to participate in a perverse redefinition of marriage, riotous campus liberals attempting to shut down speech with which they disagree, and “the debate is over” liberals who want to silence dissent on the “settled science” of man-made global warming.

Of course, the political champion of scientism is the political arm of modern liberalism: the Democrat Party. Sadly, tens of millions of Americans have been duped into voting for democrats for two reasons in particular: the promise of “free stuff” (as Rush Limbaugh puts it, it’s hard to compete with Santa Claus), and the lure of having legal protection for most anything they can imagine to do sexually.

In other words, today’s Democrats, for the most part, are peddling pleasure. Aided by like-minded fools in the media and the courts, their job is made even easier. Conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—must not be deterred. Given the foolish fantasies sold by lying leftists, this fight is not easy. Whether faced with threats, violence, protests, fines, jail, and so on, we must persevere and remain powerful voices for truth in these grave matters.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America