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

If you "Like" this page, please visit our 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:

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Jolie, Pitt, and Gender Madness

With the Christmas Day release of the Angelina Jolie-produced and directed film, Unbroken, I came across the news that discussed the red-carpet appearance of Jolie’s family at the film’s premiere. Jolie was down with chickenpox, so her family was out in force supporting her and the film. With Jolie absent, much of the media attention turned to her eight-year-old daughter, Shiloh.

Shiloh has drawn the media’s eye because, despite being a girl, Jolie and her husband, actor Brad Pitt, are adorning the child as if she were a boy. In other words, it seems that Jolie and Pitt are willing to use the poor child as a pawn in furthering the feminist-homosexual agenda that dominates today’s liberalism.

Jolie and Pitt would never openly admit to using their child as a tool in their feminist-homosexual games. They claim, as do many in these situations, that they are simply allowing their child to choose this path. When Shiloh was as young as two-and-a-half, Pitt claimed to Oprah Winfrey that the little girl only wanted to be called “John.” In 2010, when Shiloh was about four, Jolie told Vanity Fair that her child “wants to be a boy…She thinks she’s one of the brothers.”

Liberal apologists for the feminist-homosexual agenda tell parents that they should simply accept a child’s cross-gender behavior. Liberals like Jolie and Pitt are only too happy to oblige. Because of their complete acceptance of homosexuality in all of its perversions—including transgenderism—they must have their own personal lives reflect this warped worldview. What better way to show your commitment to such a worldview than to have your own child live it out.

Make no mistake about it, this easily could be described as child abuse, and yet the mainstream media is doing nothing but lending their support to such perversion.

The pro-homosexual publication The Advocate recently noted how sharp young Shiloh looked at the red-carpet premiere dressed in a suit and tie like her brothers, and sporting her hair shortly cropped. The UK Telegraph reported glowingly on Shiloh’s appearance at the premiere as well. They also took the opportunity to instruct us all in how we are to raise good little gender-benders.

“To explore what it means to be both genders is also totally normal,” said Linda Blair, the clinical psychologist sought out by the Telegraph. And of course, the implication is that such exploration is never to be discouraged. “[T]he problem,” says Blair, is that we have “suppressed” such exploration “for so many generations, that people are still not comfortable with it. You can’t become what you are until you know what you’re not.”

Of course, “what you are” according to “gender feminism” is, as Mary Brown Parlee put it in Psychology Today in the late 1970s, “as much a social decision as a recognition of biological fact.” Or, as another feminist writer put it, “Although many people think men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blue-print, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.”

Until as recently as 2012, the common-sense notion that men who believed they were women, and vice-versa, was a mental illness, prevailed. Bowing to the feminist-homosexual agenda, in late 2012, the APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its diagnostic manual. However, the politics of the APA doesn’t change sound science and morality.

As the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital noted earlier this year, transgenderism is “a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” He adds, not treating transgender disorder properly “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” Almost certainly “grim psychological outcomes” loom for 8-year-olds, who surely know nothing of transgender disorders, but who have been conditioned for years to live as the opposite sex.

Since at least the 1970s, when among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section “Boys’ Toys” and “Girls’ Toys,” liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls—aside from the obvious biological ones—were the result of “patriarchal cultural biases.”

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to “dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine.”

Jolie and Pitt are just a famous example of what is playing out all over the country when it comes to gender feminism, and things are even crazier than Dr. Dobson imagined when he penned Bringing Up Boys in 2001. The U.S. Dept. of Education just directed schools that receive federal funds to allow students to be placed in classes that align with their “gender identity” when it comes to placement in single-sex classrooms. This includes sex-education classes, which are often segregated by gender.

The state of New York just issued a regulation that requires Medicaid to cover treatment for “transgenders,” including sex-change operations. Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center threatened to sue the Georgia Department of Corrections if it didn’t provide hormone treatment for a male inmate who wishes to live as a woman. As was noted in 2013, the notorious traitor Bradley Manning also wants taxpayers to foot the bill for his “conversion” from male to female (which is impossible).

A superior court in Maine recently fined a school district $75,000 for refusing to allow a boy, who identifies as a girl, to use the girls’ restroom. This year also saw the Minnesota athletic league, in the name of “transgender inclusivity,” vote 18 to 1 to allow children to participate on sports teams according to whichever gender with which they identify. Of course, the state of California leads the way when it comes to accommodating gender perversions in its state schools—all the way down to the kindergarten level.

This is just a sampling of the gender madness that is sweeping the U.S. (For more, see my marriage/family/sexuality archives.) Liberals across the U.S., aided and abetted by the Democrat Party, are, through legislation and the courts, pushing the transgender agenda. At least eighteen states (note: those dominated by liberals), plus the District of Columbia, have laws that prevent “discrimination” against the transgendered, including restroom access.

If liberals had their way, they would pass similar legislation at the federal level, thus forcing every community across the U.S. to accommodate the transgendered (see the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). And instead of Jolie and Pitt and their kind being investigated, or at least socially rejected, liberals would have them celebrated from sea to shining sea.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, December 22, 2014

Left-Wing Lynch Mob Claim Officers Ramos and Liu

In the wake of the execution of New York City police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by liberal vigilante Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the president of the city’s largest police union, Patrick Lynch, laid blame for the murders at the feet of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. The blood of the dead officers “starts on the steps of City Hall,” he said, “in the office of the mayor.”

In a separate statement, Sergeants Benevolent Association Police Union President Edward Mullins, blasted Mayor de Blasio as well and declared that, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.” While de Blasio is certainly complicit in the tragic deaths of these two officers, he is far from alone.

Coming off a staggering electoral defeat, in order to breathe fresh life into liberalism, when it came his turn, Mayor de Blasio merely followed the lead of his fellow liberal race-hustlers in rushing to paint a militant, racist picture of police across America. Liberals such as de Blasio, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama saw the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner as little more than a political opportunity.

The cries of “racism” in the deaths of both Brown and Garner was little more than a tragic attempt to use a “snarl-word” to perhaps get potential voters to again consider the Democrat Party. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, “the whole Democrat Party now is one big grievance industry.”

As Rush also noted, the left is out there doing their best to rouse-up these rage-filled angry mobs. “[C]ollege professors, these pop-culture false idols, elected Democrats, the media, are literally making their followers, i.e., base voters, insane with rage and anger.” And just as no one should be surprised that a publication devoted to liberalism would flub a story on campus sexual assault, no one should be surprised that a member of the liberal base would take the chant of “What do we want? Dead Cops!” to its literal fruition.

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

Sunday, December 14, 2014


Recently, a Christian man--Theodore Shoebat, who runs the hypocrisy (and frequent vulgarites) of the militant homosexual agenda. Mr. Shoebat called 13 gay-owned bakeries and asked them to bake a pro-biblical marriage cake. All refused. Some used deviant vulgarities in their rebuff of Mr. Shoebat.

Recall that a Christian-owned bakery was successfully sued when they refused to provide a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage" on it. I have well chronicled the wide variety of Christian businesses that have suffered the wrath of the homosexual agenda, and our foolish courts who have, for the most part, supported this perverse agenda.

Will these "intolerant" pro-homosexual businesses be held to the same standards as the Christian-owned businesses? Don't count on it. As is typical with the tenants of liberalism, it's never really about truth and justice. It's about furthering the liberal agenda, by whatever means necessary.

Observe Mr. Shoebat's experience with the pro-homosexual baker's below as he asked them to bake a cake with the message "Gay Marriage is Wrong." (Warning: explicit language.)

Part 1:

Part 2:

Friday, December 12, 2014

Rolling Stone, et al. Bemoan the Culture They Helped Create

Why is anyone surprised that Rolling Stone would flub a rape story? Since when did a magazine so devoted to a liberal worldview, and that borders on—and, by my standards, crosses over into—pornography, become a trusted source for matters involving women and sexual assault?

For over four decades, Rolling Stone has spilled thousands of gallons of ink glorifying the hedonistic, misogynistic culture of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll. Its covers have been adorned with nude men and women—sometimes together. Pornography is a regular topic, and it’s almost always put in a positive light.

In April of this year, Rolling Stone did a near 4,000-word exposé on the infamous Miriam Weeks—aka Belle Knox—the Duke freshman who decided to pay for college with a career in the porn industry. Describing America’s reaction to the news of a barely-out-of-high-school 18 year-old—without the knowledge and consent of her parents—becoming a porn sensation, the author declares, “On the one hand, said some, why shouldn't a consenting adult engage in a perfectly legal profession in order to better herself through higher learning? And what right does society have to tell women what to do or not do with their bodies, anyway? But, on the other hand, you know, WTF?” As if those of us who stand aghast at Miss Weeks’ decision can only manage “WTF?”

I won’t link to the piece. It’s full of vulgarities and perversions, and it paints as rosy a picture as possible for a still teenage girl who has prostituted herself to the point that her first scene as a porn star was described as:

“I remember getting naked, and the guy said, ‘You have cuts on your legs. You're a cutter.’ He could tell I had written the word ‘fat’ in my thigh, so he started calling me fat.” Once they called “action,” she was pushed to the ground and slapped. “And I said, ‘Stop, stop, stop. No, no.’ And then they stopped, and they were like, ‘We have to keep going.’” 
“And I was like, ‘Just please don't hit me so hard.’ But it went on like that, me getting hit, pushed, spit on. I was being told I was fat, that I was a terrible feminist, was going to fail all my classes, was stupid, dumb, a slut. But I got through it. You know how you kind of zone out sometimes? I just disassociated.’”

She just “disassociated.” One of the great lies of the porn industry, whether a participant or a consumer, is that one can simply “disassociate” such activity from the rest of one’s life. In other words, as any good liberal knows, porn consumption or participation is just like the consumption or participation in an abortion—it’s no big deal.

Rolling Stone was so impressed with Miss Weeks that, just two weeks prior to running the disastrous “A Rape on Campus” piece, they published her defense of prostitution in their opinion section. That’s right, a publication that wants us to take them seriously when it comes to a matter as grave as rape, devoted a part of their opinion pages to a 19-year-old who, in addition to now devoting her life to porn, has also added “prostitution apologist” to her résumé. Miss Weeks informs us that prostitutes are only trying to make an “honest living,” and we should avoid the notions of “abused hookers and human traffickers” that are so often associated with prostitution.

Unsurprisingly, Miss Weeks could hardly be more wrong. As I noted back in April, 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.

In 2008, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times points out that, “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.

Of course, in pornography, women (and men) are also commodities to be consumed. Gail Dines, a highly regarded academic, author of Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, and considered “the world's leading anti-pornography campaigner,” concludes that “the earlier men use porn, the more likely they are to have trouble developing close, intimate relationships with real women.”

Dines adds that, “Some of these men prefer porn to sex with an actual human being. They are bewildered, even angry, when real women don't want or enjoy porn sex.” Of course, such anger often results in violence. Dines also notes that “porn sex” is becoming increasingly violent (as Miss Weeks’ experience demonstrates).

“We are now bringing up a generation of boys on cruel, violent porn,” Dines says, “and given what we know about how images affect people, this is going to have a profound influence on their sexuality, behavior and attitudes towards women.” In Dines’ research, she has found that the prevalence of porn means that men are becoming desensitized to it. Thus, men are getting caught in the vicious cycle of looking for images that are ever more harsh, violent, and degrading toward women.

Ms. Dines goes on to describe images that are too horrible to mention here. “To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound,” she concludes. Additionally, Dines points out that, “Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear.”

Yet women like Miss Weeks ignorantly and defiantly conclude that it’s the “conservative Bible Belt culture of the South” that makes a “highly misogynistic and oppressive atmosphere for women.”

In early 2013, the insufferable Lena Dunham, doing her best Miley Cyrus imitation on the cover, also had a spread in Rolling Stone. Dunham, who, when she’s not writing (and performing in) TV shows and books that promote and glorify abortion, casual sex, drug use, and everything else that makes a liberal’s life complete, also takes topless selfies in support of the abortion mill known as Planned Parenthood.

Demonstrating that, for liberals, not all rapes and rapists are created equal, it seems that Planned Parenthood is also in the business of protecting pedophiles. A recent investigation reveals that girls as young as 10 were taken by their abusers to Planned Parenthood facilities for abortions and birth control. Because Planned Parenthood staff failed to report the crimes, the sexual abuse continued for years. Some girls were brought repeatedly for abortions, yet no questions were asked.

Earlier this year, the pro-life group Live Action caught Planned Parenthood giving dangerous and violent sexual advice to girls as young as 15. According to American Thinker’s Drew Belsky (Live Action’s communications director at the time), “As viewers can see in our preview, Planned Parenthood has an institutional policy of endorsing and recommending dangerous sexual behaviors to underage girls. These include whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation. Remember, the counselors in these videos believe that they are talking to a 15-year-old girl.”

“Whipping, beating, breaking the skin, and asphyxiation”—sounds something like what often occurs during a rape.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, in USA Today, recently pointed out more liberal hypocrisy when it comes to rape. Terry Bean, the co-founder of the largest pro-homosexual advocacy organization in America, the Human Rights Campaign, was recently arrested and indicted on two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after allegedly having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online last year.

Bean is also co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and is a major donor to the National Democratic Committee and a major financial supporter of Democrats across the U.S., including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Bean has made multiple trips to the White House and has even been on Air Force One. In other words, on issues related to homosexuality, Bean has the ear of virtually every leader in the Democrat Party.

Rolling Stone, Lena Dunham, Planned Parenthood, and other such liberals to whom “the narrative” is the priority, can never be trusted to tell the whole story when it comes to matters as grave as rape. Worse, the sexual perversions that plague our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault, liberals are mourning a culture that they helped to create. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Sunday, December 7, 2014

For Liberalism, It's Always About "The Narrative"

After members of the Fellowship of Ferguson Fabricators, also known as the Congressional Black Caucus, gathered on the floor of the U.S. House on Monday to showcase the St. Louis Rams’ new touchdown signal, otherwise known as the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” gesture, Thomas Sowell likened the display to Nazi propaganda.

I don’t usually like allusions to Nazism tossed around in our political debates—it’s too often used simply as hyperbole—but liberals today certainly are following the messaging strategy famously articulated by Joseph Goebbels: repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and people will believe it.

Defending the actions of his congressional cohorts to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, Democrat representative Al Green brashly argued that, “It’s not enough for things to be right, they must also look right.” The Houston congressman (Is there any surprise that the place where pastors’ sermons are subpoenaed—because they contradict the current liberal narrative on marriage and sexuality—would elect the likes of Congressman Green?) also accused Kelly of telling only “one side of the story.”

In a stunning display of hypocrisy, the looters and rioters in Ferguson, Missouri accused CNN of promoting a “certain narrative.” In other words, while shining a bit of light into darkness (It seems that even CNN can sometimes stumble onto the truth, even when it doesn’t mean to!), CNN was doing damage to the liberal narrative in Ferguson. And for liberalism, “the narrative,” not truth, is essential.

As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

This skill has been keenly tested with the events in Ferguson. The liberal apologists at Time Magazine went so far as to pen a “Defense of Rioting.” Sounding like the puppet of President Obama and the ally of the immoral that she is, Time’s Darlena Cunha instructs us that, “When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable.”

Seemingly desperate to show off her liberal cred, Ms. Cunha evokes Darwin and adds, “Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society.” Such an ignorant statement must be born of desperation; otherwise we must conclude that Time is in the habit of employing ignoramuses. She painfully continues, “Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets.”

Ahh, the ever elusive liberal utopia. It seems hopelessly lost on Cunha and her ilk that the decades of pursuit of such nonsense by liberalism is ultimately what has yielded Ferguson and other such dystopic nightmares. To distract from the nightmares, and even to excuse them, the narratives continue. Instead of actually dealing with what is wrong in Ferguson, liberals give us vague lectures about “justice,” “structural inequality,” a “culture of oppression,” and, of course, “racism.”

The khaki-creased “conservative” at The New York Times, David Brooks, demonstrates that his intellectual palate prefers modern liberal narratives to the notion of absolute truth when he spoke on Ferguson. He said, “This is not a question of good versus evil, right versus wrong. Racial inequality has become entangled in all sorts of domestic problems…”

Brooks’ editorial colleague at the “newspaper of record,” Nicholas Kristof, devoted a five-part series recently to explain why “Whites Just Don’t Get It.” Democrat Representative Eleanor Holmes said that the facts in Ferguson don’t matter to her. And on and on it went and continues.

Just prior to the second dose of Ferguson riots, in order to help sell abortion and sexual promiscuity, and in a spectacularly failed attempt to elect Democrats, liberals all across the U.S. saturated the media with the “war on women” narrative. So violently is this narrative protected and sold, the unborn are dehumanized to the point that no limits on the age of the mother or the unborn child are tolerated.

Demonstrating their continued penchant for calling evil good and good evil, and in a sad attempt to take the moral high ground on abortion, Katha Pollitt, author of Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, writes, “Terminating a pregnancy is always a woman’s right and often a deeply moral decision. It is not evil, even a necessary evil.”

Late this past summer, in the Washington Post, pro-abortionist Janet Harris said that abortion should never be considered “difficult” or “immoral.” In order to de-humanize the baby, and thus make us feel better about killing it, Harris declares, “To say that deciding to have an abortion is a ‘hard choice’ implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.”

That’s right Ms. Harris, because it’s all supposed to be about you. In order to promote big government, liberals deftly lecture us about how they care about those in need, and about how, if we would only give them the power, they would make a better world for all of us. Ms. Harris’s above conclusion reveals what liberalism is really all about: a “Dictatorship of Pride.” In other words, under liberalism each of us is “free” to do “what is right in our own eyes.”

“Pride leads to every other vice,” the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis reveals. “It was through pride that the devil became the devil…it is the complete anti-God state of mind.” This is why I find liberalism so repulsive. In almost every moral issue of our time, liberals stand opposed to the truth.

The narrative that says that an unborn child is not a life worth protecting is one of the most enduring lies of liberalism. In order to sell this lie, we now must suffer the “heart-warming” tales of women who’ve decided to kill their unborn children. And of course, the mainstream media is only all too eager to help. In October of this year, the pro-abortion media was beside itself celebrating the “beautiful,” “brave,” “powerful,” and “heartwarming” letter written by an anonymous Reddit user that revealed her plans to abort her unborn child.

The abortion narrative has its roots in the sexual narrative preached during the sexual revolution of the 1960s: that we all have the right to do whatever we wish in the sexual realm, which has also “given birth” to the unconditional acceptance of homosexuality. To promote this perversion, and distract from the truths of homosexuality, liberals again employ those heart-warming tales that are supposed to distract us from the darker side of whatever it is they are promoting.

Liberals have been recently put to the test on this narrative as well. Terry Bean, the co-founder of the largest pro-homosexual advocacy organization in America, the Human Rights Campaign, was recently arrested and indicted on two felony counts of third-degree sodomy and one count of third-degree sexual abuse after allegedly having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online last year.

Bean is also co-founder of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and is a major donor to the National Democratic Committee and a major financial supporter of Democrats across the U.S., including Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Bean has made multiple trips to the White House and has even been on Air Force One. In other words, on issues related to homosexuality, Bean has the ear of virtually every leader in the Democrat Party.

In this case liberals are forced to protect their narrative. This too is a common approach taken by liberals when “inconvenient truths” come to light. Very little is being written or spoken when it comes to Mr. Bean. Of course, it’s not as if liberals are incapable of reporting when it comes to homosexuals and crime. How many Americans are still under the illusion that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a “homophobic” hate-crime?

In order to push the homosexual agenda, for nearly two decades liberals have continued to promote this lie. Author Stephen Jimenez, himself a homosexual, has been instrumental in helping to reveal the truth in this matter. In 2013 Jimenez published The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard. Shepard’s life, it turns out, is a sad tale of drug addiction, drug trafficking, child molestation, and rampant sexual promiscuity. Shepard’s murderer, Aaron McKinney, was his drug partner/rival as well as his homosexual lover. Both Shepard and McKinney were heavy meth users as well as dealers.

Though Shepard was killed in 1998, for over 10 years his narrative thrived to the point that Democrats passed major legislation in his name. The Congressional Democrats passed, and President Obama signed the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crime Prevention Act in 2009. A few brave souls attempted to point out the lie that is the Shepard narrative. On the floor of the U.S. House, North Carolina Representative Virginia Foxx attempted to point out the Shepard hoax.

The left went nuts. The nuts at MSNBC went even nuttier. Keith Olbermann named Foxx his “World’s Worst” and called her “criminally misinformed.” In his typical angry-anchorman speak, Olbermann continued to spread the Shepard myth by telling his audience that Shepard’s killers lured him away by “pretending to be gay.”

After Jimenez’s book came out just over a year ago, the pro-gay publication The Advocate finally asked, “Have We Gotten Matthew Shepard All Wrong?” No matter though. As the piece puts it, “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.” And there you have it: it’s okay to lie; it’s okay to promote “the narrative,” as long as the end justifies the means.

Of course, the most recent offspring of the sexual narrative that came out of the sexual revolution is the lie that is same-sex “marriage.” So swiftly has this narrative taken off that what just barely a decade ago would have caused even the most ardent liberal politician to squirm to defend, is now openly celebrated and promoted. Though there is nothing in the 200-plus years under our Constitution to suggest any idea that our Founders would have been anything but repulsed by the mere mention of two men or two women marrying, judges across the U.S. are rushing to declare same-sex marriage “constitutional.”

Although polling data shows an increase in the acceptance of same-sex “marriage,” when put before voters, the vast majority of states have overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriage. Rogue judges deceived by the liberal narrative on marriage and sexuality are overturning the will of the U.S. electorate.

One issue that, again, at least according to most polls, the liberal narrative has yet to sway many Americans on is global warming—I mean climate change. The left is undeterred, however, and as is almost always the case, the narrative continues.

The narrative here is so powerful that many liberals have made their devotion to the climate into a religion. Ian Plimer, a geologist, author, professor of earth sciences and mining geology, as well as an ardent atheist and Darwinian evolutionist—which, normally would make him a darling of the political left—calls global warming “the new religion of First World urban elites.”

Plimer adds, “Environmentalism has many of the hallmarks of failed European socialism and [failed] Western Christianity. It has a holy book which few have read [IPCC reports], has prophets [Al Gore, et al] who cannot be challenged, relies on dogma, ignores contrary evidence, has armies of wide-eyed missionaries...; imposes guilt, has a catastrophist view of the planet, and seeks indulgences.” Leave it to an atheist to recognize a religion when he sees one.

Whether polar bears and the always “disappearing” arctic ice (that continues to set records for volume), or blizzards, cold-snaps, droughts, heat-waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild-fires, etc. that always have useful human (and animal) victims, and dramatic television footage, the left again employs sympathetic stories to sell the narrative. It’s also quite useful when virtually any weather disaster can be written into the climate change narrative.

Again, like with virtually every issue discussed here, liberals are using the climate change narrative to push significant legislation and official government policy. Because, for liberals, the solution almost always lies with government and political power.

In this case, such legislation and policy is usually aimed at fossil fuels. Operating under the myth that man-caused carbon emissions are warming the planet, liberals are waging war on oil, coal, and natural gas. President Obama, yet unable to win over American voters with his lofty climate rhetoric, has made it a mission to use his executive power to foist the left’s climate agenda upon the world. As with the federal judges and same-sex “marriage,” (and for that matter abortion as well), the oligarchs of the left know best, and as long as they have the power, it will be used.

For a man who is supposedly one of the smartest, if not the smartest, men ever to be president of the United States, Obama’s climate agenda has painted him into a political corner from which there is no escape. Oil prices are currently just below $70 a barrel, down over $40 per barrel since June of this year, and it continues to fall. The price is less than half of what it was just prior to Obama taking office.

The drop is due to major growth in U.S. production, which is due to American innovations such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling, which the left hates. In 2012, to help further the pro-climate change, anti-fossil fuel narrative, Warmist Matt Damon even made a movie about the “horrors” of fracking. In a bit of twisted irony, Damon’s anti-fracking film was funded in part by foreign oil wealth.

The drop in oil prices has led to a significant drop in the price of gasoline across the U.S. The price is well below $3 a gallon and, like oil, is expected to continue to drop. Such a drop in energy costs for Americans is helping to invigorate the U.S. economy, but because of their war on fossil fuels, liberals can’t take credit even if they wanted to. Instead, we are warned about “The Trouble With Cheap Oil.”

“We are awash in cheap oil” laments the uber-liberals at the New Yorker. Liberals love higher oil and gasoline prices because, “High oil prices would force governments, corporations, and consumers to find another way to power the world.” Did you see that? We need to be “forced” to find another way to power the world. Most liberals are far too comfortable “forcing” their agenda upon America. “Force” is at the heart of liberalism, and that is why so often false narratives can be justified, and why so often a big government agenda is pursued. After all, what better instrument to force an agenda than big government?

And thus we see, whether climate change, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion, racism—and for that matter, immigration, gun control, education, and so on—liberalism is not concerned with the truth, but with whatever narrative will put liberals in power.

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

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Liberals Again Prefer Fantasy to Fact

It almost never fails. In spite of physical evidence and sound eyewitness accounts, today’s liberals refuse to acknowledge what plainly contradicts their preferred meme on any of the favored tenets of liberalism. Whether global warming, marriage, life in the womb, energy, homosexuality, foreign policy, defense policy, immigration, healthcare, or the scene of a crime, liberals all across the U.S. find themselves looking to manufacture “facts” to fit the world in which they wish to live.

“Truth is incontrovertible,” wrote Winston Churchill, “Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.” When confronted with a truth that they don’t like, what better describes many modern liberals than panicked, ignorant, and full of malice? Of course, the chaos following the recent grand jury decision out of Ferguson, Missouri is the latest case in point.

Since the death of Michael Brown, how many chants of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” have we heard? How many posters and t-shirts have been emblazoned with what we now know was nothing but a lie?

The thousands of pages of grand jury testimony, which included details concerning a significant amount of physical evidence, finally brought to light what really happened on the night police officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown. There’s so much evidence that disputes the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” narrative that even the likes of the AP has started to question whether Michael Brown was indeed an innocent victim of police brutality.

The mention of Brown with his hands up is found throughout the grand jury documents. According to the AP, the accounts are so widely varying it’s as if witnesses, or alleged witnesses, were describing totally different scenes.

However, the liberal faithful remain just that. Taylor Gruenloh, a 32-year-old protestor from near Ferguson, declared that “Even if you don't find that it's true (Brown was shot with his hands up, surrendering), it's a valid rallying cry.” He adds that. “It's just a metaphor.” So for weeks now, liberals have lectured, looted, and lusted for vengeance based on nothing but a metaphor?

“This is not about one boy getting shot in the street, but about the hundreds just like him who have received the same callous and racially-influenced treatment,” said Oakland demonstrator Gabe Johnson. Hundreds? I’ll bet Mr. Johnson couldn’t name ten, but “hundreds” sounds so much more menacing. Mr. Johnson, and those like him, can justify their angry and misguided efforts with “hundreds.”

As the AP explains, “To some, it doesn't matters whether Brown's hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.” As many well know, liberals are always looking for the next “symbol” to promote America as a nation full of racists. Hand-in-hand with this, many liberals are also always on the lookout for the next excuse to protest, “occupy,” riot, burn, pillage, plunder, or any other such activity that doesn’t require innovation, an interview, or a clock to punch.

After Brown’s death, in lieu of looting, it seems at least some under the influence of liberalism gave it the old entrepreneurial try. Reportedly, back in the middle of October, Brown’s paternal grandmother, Pearlie Gordon, along with a few cohorts, attempted to sell Michael Brown merchandise in the parking lot of Red’s BBQ, a Ferguson area barbecue joint. According to police reports (surprise!), shortly after 1 p.m. on October 18, about two dozen individuals were fighting in the parking lot of Red’s.

Apparently, a crowd led by Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, McSpadden’s mother Desureia Harris, and McSpadden’s then boyfriend (now husband) Louis Head, rushed the merchandise stand and assaulted Gordon and others present. One victim ended up in the hospital. The police report stated that McSpadden was heard yelling “get her ass.” McSpadden was also accused of punching Gordon.

Such a display, along with Louis Head’s call to “burn this bitch down,” after the grand jury’s decision was announced, along with the video of Brown robbing the convenience store prior to being shot, certainly does no favors to the “gentle giant” label that was so frequently used to describe Michael Brown. After all, isn’t it at least probable that Brown was somewhat likely to display the same thuggary and brashness exhibited by his matriarchs?

Yet, privileged liberals tell us that it’s Officer Wilson’s account that is unbelievable. Upon reading Wilson’s grand jury testimony, Ezra Klein finds it “unbelievable. Literally.” Just to clarify for those of us less smart than he, Klein expounds on what he means by “unbelievable:” “I mean that in the literal sense of the term: ‘difficult or impossible to believe.’” Got it?

For Klein, it is “difficult to believe” that a 6-foot-4-inch, 300-pound 18-year-old who had just committed a violent robbery, while high on drugs, would dare challenge or attack a police officer who was confronting him. Again, this is in spite of the video inside of the store that shows Brown callously and arrogantly shoving the clerk who dared to request payment for the items that Brown was about to steal from the store.

Adam Howard of MSNBC tells us why he can’t believe Darren Wilson. In spite of the physical evidence and multiple eyewitness accounts, Howard simply refuses to believe that Brown would have charged at Wilson. He laments that too many of us “refuse to see the collective tragedy of [Michael Brown’s, Rodney King’s, et al] stories and instead accept the official line of what took place wholesale.”

What we refuse to do here is to cower to liberalism and ignore the facts. What we refuse to do is coddle criminals while condemning cops. What we refuse to do is to encourage those who would resort to lawlessness in their pursuit of “justice.” And the only “line” being dangled here is that by Howard and his ilk.

As another, wiser, Michael Brown instructs us, what Ferguson (and the rest of the world) needs is not more protests, platitudes, and politics, but redemption.

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

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Ferguson Again Erupts With Liberalism

When the news came down that the Ferguson grand jury had declined to indict police officer Darren Wilson, what ensued was sadly all too predictable. The burning, looting, shooting, and the like to "protest" unpopular police or government actions have become all too commonplace for those who are under the influence of liberalism.

As I noted in August of this year, after the surveillance video of Michael Brown robbing a convenience store was released--which set off more random acts of liberalism--Ferguson is and has been somewhat of a mess for the very same reasons virtually every other urban area in America is a mess: liberalism.

Ferguson has long been (Update, 5/17/15, as a regular commentator (Kiev) notes here, the politics of Ferguson is not quite the same as the politics of St. Louis County. Prior to the Michael Brown incident, Ferguson had a significant republican government. However, as is noted here, this is not due to some nefarious conservative plot.) dominated politically by Democrats. St. Louis County Prosecutor, Robert McCulloch, who took the evidence to the grand jury, is a Democrat. In the past election, which saw Republicans make gains all over the country at every level, Democrat County Councilman Steve Stenger won the race for St. Louis County executive. This is in spite of the perceived close ties Stenger had (and, I presume, still has) with the increasingly unpopular McCulloch.

Of course, it is exclusively liberals who are stoking the racial tensions in Ferguson. Liberals all across the U.S. are attempting to make political hay out of the grand jury's decision. President Obama again decided to interject himself into the Ferguson situation, giving veiled cover to the Ferguson rioters, saying that reacting in anger is "understandable." He also carefully managed to throw the police under the bus, calling on them to "show care and restraint" and "work with the community, not against the community," and amazingly concluded that those rioting and destroying property amounted to only "a handful of people."

Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that civil rights charges are still possible. The professional race-pimps and publicity prostitutes like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who make their living off of situations like what is occurring in Ferguson, will almost certainly again be on the scene. Missouri State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal proudly declared on MSNBC that what was happening in Ferguson was "St. Louis' race war."

As Dennis Prager rightly points out, what is happening in Ferguson is not due to a racial divide, but a moral one. Of course, liberalism is rooted in moral relativism, and thus, while killing children in the womb, redefining marriage, sexual perversions of every kind imaginable, "redistribution" of wealth, and wanton destruction of other people's property can be justified, defending oneself from a violent, high-on-drugs thief is, no matter the physical evidence, an unjust act that requires vengeance. Sadly, today's liberals are all too willing to comply.

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

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Marriage: "What Must We Do?"

As a link I provided on my headlines above (on the same date of this piece) makes note, Rick Warren, Russell Moore and others were present at Humanum 2014 this week discussing and defending the biblical truths on marriage. The gathering is a conference convened by Pope Francis and held at the Vatican. Pastor Warren, it seems, was one of the last, if not the last, of over two dozen who spoke. His message is well worth sharing.

The video is below and is about 40 minutes long. I've summarized his main points below as well.

(Prelude: Hebrew’s 13:4 tells us that marriage is to be honored by all.)

Pastor Warren’s “action plan” for what to do on marriage:
  • · Affirm the Authority of God’s Word
    • Truth is still truth no matter how many people doubt it
    • We don’t break God’s laws, they break us
  • Believe what Jesus taught about marriage
    • Mark 10:6-9 is the “owner’s manual” on marriage
    • Jesus 5 convictions about marriage (unchangeable, incontrovertible, unmovable)
      • Gender is God’s idea; He made us either male or female—our identity is either a man or a woman 
      • Marriage is God’s idea—He defines it
      • Sex was created for marriage; male and female body parts were made to fit together; sex was not created for recreation; there’s no such thing as “safe-sex”—there is no condom that can prevent a broken heart
      • Marriage is a union of a man and a woman
      • Marriage is for life
  • Celebrate healthy marriages (especially churches): don’t simply be an opponent of what’s wrong, be a proponent of what’s right; incorporate celebrations of marriage into church services, etc.; 
  • Develop small-group courses to support marriage
  • Engage every media to promote marriage
    • To engage the next generation, we must use social media 
    • The church is being out-marketed by the opponents of marriage (a significant minority)
    • Whichever side tells the best stories wins
    • More entertainment that promotes healthy marriage
    • Use media to question the cultural lies
    • Teach the difference between love and lust: love can always wait to give, lust can never wait to take
  • Face attackers with joy and winsomeness
    • Are we more interested in winning an argument or making friends? 
    • Our opponents in these debates are not our enemies, they’re our mission field
    • Don’t be afraid to be unpopular
    • The only way to always be relevant is to be eternal
    • It isn’t necessary to be on the “right side of history,” we just need to be on the right side
    • What we’re debating is a question of leadership: is the church going to lead or follow
  •  Give people confidence (hope) that their marriage can make it; preach for faith
  • Teach (he skips to “T” for lack of time) the purposes of marriage; to value something, we must understand its purpose (time, money, sexuality, marriage, etc.)
    • 6 purposes of marriage:
      • Elimination of loneliness
      • Expression of sex
      • Multiplication of the human race
      • Protection and education of children
      • Perfection of our character (marriage is the laboratory for learning how to love)
      • Reflection of our union with Christ
I left out many interesting details. Enjoy.

In light of this, don't forget the Marriage Commitment Challenge.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Desperate Democrats (Again) Look to the Climate

When it snows, it pours. This is especially true if you're a Democrat fighting for political relevance and the best you have is, "We just saved the planet!" (from a threat that doesn't exist) and "We made a deal with communists! (which we cannot enforce)." For Democrats, winter has come in early--and brutally--in more ways than one. After the midterm disaster suffered by Democrats, the political winter that ensued for liberals has now been accompanied by literal wintertime weather, of the record-breaking sort.

Though the calendar only reads the middle of November, much of the U.S.--as most well know, because we can see it and feel it--is experiencing snowfall and cold never-before recorded at this time of the year. The recent cold in Denver broke records that stood for nearly a century. This past Monday, St. Cloud Minnesota broke a November snowfall record that stood for well over a century.
"But this is just weather," many liberals exclaim. "The climate is much more complicated, and, just like with healthcare, your too stupid to understand the difference. So just hand over the economy to smart people like us, and we'll fix it," or so they say.

Though, how smart can one be to try and make political hay out of a global warming climate deal with communists in the middle of a record-breaking cold snap? President Obama called the climate deal he just struck with the Chinese "historic." Desperate to try and prop up the politically crippled President, his enablers and confidants in the media more than agree. Grist considers it a "game changer." Eugene Robinson's piece on the deal is entitled, "An Accord the Planet Needed."

The New York Times called the deal a "landmark agreement" and implies that Democrats focus on the climate is a "winning cause in the 2016 presidential campaign."

Do you recall the climate being a winning issue for Democrats recently? Me neither. In fact, the only Democrat facing an election right now, the embattled and abandoned Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, is ready to completely defy her party when it comes to climate politics and fully support the building of the Keystone Pipeline. Several of her Democrat colleagues in the Senate seem ready to join her.

However, just like the climate deal with China, Landrieu's efforts won't matter. The time for political courage on the Keystone Pipeline, Obamacare, and other such matters has come and gone. Just as the climate doom-and-gloom preached by liberals doesn't pass the smell (or sight, or feel) test, Landrieu's actions will be seen for what they are: political desperation. And in spite of what liberals think, Louisiana voters are smart enough to figure this out.

**(For my lengthy archives on global warming/climate/energy opinions and articles go here.)**

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

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Happy Birthday Michelle!

Today is the day that my beautiful and wise wife was born. As most of you are aware, in addition to being a wife to me--no easy task!--a mother to our four children, the principle author of our first book (Yes, another one is coming.), and just this year, administrator of Gainesville Home-School Academy, Michelle edits almost everything I write. Several years ago I wrote a piece for Valentine's Day on love.

I'm no expert on love--certainly not on romance--so to write the piece, I relied mostly on the wisdom of others, especially the Word of God. Much of what I write deals with issues related to families, and thus, marriage. As I noted in the Valentine's Day column, we believe that, after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is that between a husband and wife.

In order to be a light to the world, Michelle and I are determined to do our best to have our marriage be what God desires it to be. We sometimes fail (the enemy hates marriage!), and that is usually due to me. In spite of this, Michelle does the amazing thing that true love requires: she chooses to love me. In other words, no matter what, I am hers (and she is mine).

As Scripture, and any marriage counselor worth a dime, reveals, love is not simply a feeling, but a matter of the will. As C.S. Lewis put it, “[Love] is a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we naturally have about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people.”

Jesus told us that His entire law can be summed up with two commands: Love God and, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” How do we “love” ourselves? If we are honest, we should all admit that there are times when none of us is particularly lovable. In fact, most of us have probably been pretty disappointed in and disgusted by our own behavior, and thus, in ourselves. We may even have seen ourselves as downright nasty.

Therefore, loving our neighbor does not mean always having pleasant feelings about him, or being happy with everything she does. As Lewis also put it, it does not mean “thinking them nice either.” I'm certainly not "nice" all of the time. As anyone married for any length of time understands, my absolute worst moments are at home. In other words, my most unlovable moments are usually in the presence of my sweet wife. Yet, she chooses to love me.

Consider 1 Corinthians chapter 13, where the Apostle Paul reveals to us what true love is. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

Patience, kindness, a lack of envy or boasting; humility, politeness, and controlling your temper; keeping no record of wrongs, rejoicing in the truth, and so on—these all are matters of the will and Michelle does these better than anyone else I know on this earth. Happy birthday baby!!!

Love, Trevor

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Election Repsonse

To borrow from Charles Krauthammer, this was not a rebuke, it was a restraining order. Many Americans simply want the Democrats to go away--far away. Many have characterized this as a rebuke of Obama, but I think it goes further than that. To a significant extent, liberalism was on trial and was found wanting. As of this writing, according to the Real Clear Politics numbers, republicans added seven seats in the U.S. Senate, with Alaska and Louisiana likely making the final result a +9 for the GOP, giving them a total of 54 Senate seats. The Republicans have added 13 seats in the House, with about a dozen races--almost all Democrat seats--still undecided. Most are projecting the Republicans to hold about 250 House seats.

Additionally, and I think certainly the most surprising outcome of the night, the GOP defied the odds and actually added to their gubernatorial total across the U.S. Wins in deep blue states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland made such gains possible. At this point, with a couple of races yet to be called, Republicans now control 31 governor's mansions. According to Hot Air, "Republicans now control governorships and state legislatures in 24 states while Democrats control those in only 7 states."

Certainly the republicans are, minus occupying the White House, in perhaps the greatest position of political power they have ever experienced. We'll see what they do with it.

In closing, as I've implied before, whatever the outcome of any election, Christians should never be too elated or too downtrodden. Politics is a realm occupied by men and women, who will almost certainly let us down. This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in, or concerned with, politics. We most certainly should. However, we must live knowing that our hope is not in any individual or institution in this world. As S.M. Lockridge put it when it comes to the One Christians serve, "You can't impeach Him, and He's not going to resign."

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

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Preachers and Politics: An American Tradition

This election season really has liberals off their game. In spite of all their efforts in Ferguson, Missouri, and all the time and energy spent defending women from the perpetual “war” waged against them by the big bad GOP, they’ve now stooped to what they so often accuse their republican opponents of doing: blaming the victim.

Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times recently chronicled what she described as a “nasty incident involving the Rev. Corey Brooks.” Brooks is the pastor of New Beginnings Church on Chicago’s South Side. Last Saturday thieves broke into New Beginnings Church and stole $8,000 from a charity box that was sitting in the church’s lobby. The money was being collected to build a community center across the street from the church.

After the robbery, Brooks declared, “Nobody has ever stolen stuff from our church. We do a lot of work in the neighborhood, and no one has broken into our church. Never.” According to Mitchell, Brooks’ recent political activities “made him a target.” Evidently, in the liberal land of make-believe, a justifiable one.

Brooks, a black man, committed the cardinal political sin in liberal circles: he publicly endorsed a republican. The republican he endorsed is Bruce Rauner, the GOP candidate seeking to unseat Pat Quinn as governor of Illinois. Brooks went so far as to appear in a television ad for Rauner.

Just prior to the robbery, Brooks received many threats via telephone and social media that were the result of his involvement in Rauner’s campaign. After the robbery and the vile threats, Brooks has decided to relocate himself and his family while the threats are investigated. According to Mitchell, while no one should be threatening—and I would add robbing—Rev. Brooks “because of his political choices,” the good reverend has made himself a target because he let himself “get dragged into a street brawl.”

Mitchell also concludes that religious leaders such as Rev. Brooks—who have “brought politics into the pulpit” and whose “efforts to serve up the community to politicians”—explains why “there has been such a huge loss of respect for the black clergy.” Yet, Mitchell seems to have no problem granting respect to the race pimp and publicity prostitute known as the “Rev.” Jesse Jackson, whom she describes as “one of the remaining legends” of the civil rights era, whose “commitment to fighting for equality is evident.” She also gives props to Jackson’s pimpin’ partner, the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, who, as Mitchell glowingly notes, is the kind of “street activist who has sway over the brothers on the corner.”

Such dumbfounding duplicity by a modern liberal is unsurprising, but it is a bit surprising that a large American newspaper would run such drivel on its editorial page.

While setting up her blind critique of Rev. Brooks, Mitchell fondly recalls the glory days of the civil rights era and the strong respect commanded by black clergy, especially in the South, “where churches became sanctuaries for civil rights leaders.” It evidently escapes Ms. Mitchell what these civil rights leaders were doing behind their pulpits.

I doubt we’ll find a column by Ms. Mitchell or any of her comrades that bemoans the efforts of modern black clergy who “bravely” stand up for “marriage equality,” the “right” to healthcare, a “living wage,” contraception, open borders, abortion, and whatever other perverse cause modern liberals have embraced.

Mitchell ignores not only the efforts of today's liberals who operate behind pulpits, and the history of the civil rights era, but also the history of the very founding of this nation. From the Puritan ministers who, over a century prior to the American Revolution, established the first representative forms of government in America and gave us the first attempts at a written constitution and a bill of rights, to the firebrand preachers of the first Great Awakening who helped light the fires of revolution in America, to the abolitionists who preached the evils of slavery, the Christian clergy in the U.S., both black and white, have been instrumental in American history.

Written documents of governance from American ministers were the practice in virtually every colony founded in early America. Such practice laid the groundwork for the American Revolution. As my upcoming book notes, “for it was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sewn. The British certainly thought so, as they blamed what they derisively described as the ‘Black Robed Regiment’ for the thirst in the Colonies for American Independence. Modern historians have noted, ‘There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.’”

I don’t know if Ms. Mitchell claims to be a Christian, but her sad ideas of Christianity and what it means to be a Christian are very common these days. Whether it’s the Rev. Corey Brooks, Tim Tebow, Rick Warren, the pastors in Houston, or any other Christian today whose efforts run contrary to the modern liberal worldview, what liberals really want is silence.

As my pastor, who is also my father-in-law, often points out, when Christ truly comes into someone’s life, He is not simply a section of that life, as in a grapefruit. He is not something that we devote part of one day to and are supposed to keep separate from the rest of our lives—work, family, entertainment, politics, and so on.

Instead of a grapefruit, a person who has surrendered his or her life to Christ is more like a glass of milk that has had chocolate syrup squeezed into it. Once the chocolate and the milk are combined, it is impossible to separate one from the other. This certainly should be the case for those who occupy our pulpits. In fact, given the tragic state of morality in America today, we need more like Rev. Brooks who are willing to get into a “street brawl.”

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

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Election Update

About two days out and here is the significant news on the election:

Both parties see the campaign (in the pained words of The New York Times) "tilting towards the republicans."  As Rush pointed out Friday, democrats, and their mouth pieces in the mainstream media are in a panic, so I suppose "tilting towards the republicans" is all they can bring themselves to admit at this late stage. When all your hope lies in the forces of this world, it must be very difficult to see the political horizon loom dark.

The New York Times' "election-forecasting machine" gives the republicans a 69% chance of winning the Senate. The Washington Post's "Election Lab" puts the chances of a republican controlled Senate at 94% and a republican controlled House at 99%.

Republicans are much more excited about voting, and early voting reveals this. Republicans have taken a large lead in the early voting in Colorado. Additionally, late polls in Iowa show a large lead for GOP candidate Joni Ernst. The Obama administration is on the verge of congressional election losses that are historic--the worst in over six decades.

It's so bad for the democrats that they've taken to blaming their own constituents--Mary Landrieu implies that Louisianans are sexist and racist--and launching petitions calling for the ouster of Harry Reid. What's more, republicans have made gains among women and Hispanics.

This looks to be a another midterm romp for the GOP, what they do with it, of course, remains to be seen.

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

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Are You Judging Me, Dolly Parton?

This falls into the "Surprise: Another entertainer endorses homosexuality!" category. However, since Drudge put it out there, and since Dolly Parton is a popular fixture in the "Bible Belt," I feel the need to address her remarks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised. There are many, in the south and all over the rest of America, who are--at least seemingly--much more spiritually mature than Ms. Parton who have taken the wide path when it comes to homosexuality.Though the 68-year-old Ms. Parton uses a tactic that is common these days when it comes to defending sin, hers is not an approach that I've often dealt with.

In a Q&A with, Parton was asked about her theme-park Dollywood being a large draw for the LGBT community as well as church groups, and why she has such a large gay following. On Dollywood, she replied, "But as far as the Christians, if people want to pass judgment, they're already sinning."

On her large following in the homosexual community Parton added, "They know that I completely love and accept them, as I do all people. I've struggled enough in my life to be appreciated and understood. I've had to go against all kinds of people through the years just to be myself. I think everybody should be allowed to be who they are, and to love who they love. I don't think we should be judgmental."

Clearly Ms. Parton has a problem with those who wish to "judge" when it comes to homosexuality. Have you noticed how often people who want to excuse immorality--whether their own, or others--use a "Don't judge me!" attitude? Like I said, this is a common retort when it comes to those who wish to excuse the sin of homosexuality, abortion, divorce, or any other sin that has become widely accepted in our culture. This is especially true of sins in the sexual realm.

Of course, the reference is to Jesus' words at the beginning of Matthew chapter 7, where He declares "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." If one ignores the rest of Scripture, including the rest of Matthew 7, then one might come to the same conclusion as Ms. Parton and those like her. As most with even a cursory knowledge of Scripture are aware, a verse or two out of context can be taken to mean almost anything.

Jesus was not instructing us against making moral judgments. Just a few verses past "Do not judge," Jesus warns us to "Watch out for false prophets" and instructs us that we will recognize them by their "fruit." And, of course, when someone concludes that another is "sinning" by "passing judgment," they are themselves making a moral judgment.

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

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Desperate Georgia Democrats Look to Ferguson Fiction (Updated at the end.)

In a shameful but predictable effort to scare black Georgians into voting for Democrats, yesterday the Georgia Democrat Party sent out the following flier:

What makes this effort even more shameful and embarrassing--if today's Democrats are capable of shame and embarrassment--is that the liberal meme on the events in Ferguson, Missouri seems to be nothing but pure fiction. Just hours prior to the posting of this piece, a Washington Post headline noted, "Evidence supports officer’s account of shooting in Ferguson." 

The piece reveals that "more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports [officer] Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post."

In addition to the eye-witness testimony, much of the physical evidence also supports officer Wilson's account of the shooting. Blood splatter and shell casings inside the officer's SUV indicate there was indeed a struggle at the vehicle with Michael Brown. What's more, the official autopsy, along with independent analysis by other forensic experts, indicate that Brown was at close range when first shot and did not have his hands raised during the shooting.

Of course, this matters little to a political party desperate to hold on to power. After all, if liberals can't win in the political realm, all is lost. On virtually every issue before Americans today, modern liberals are on the wrong side of the truth in the battles waged in the moral and scientific arenas. Thus, as the above flier demonstrates, they have put almost all of their energy and efforts into a sophisticated propaganda machine that they hope will deceive just enough of the American electorate. 

Additionally, perhaps the biggest lie of the flier above is the seemingly intact, upper/middle-class, nuclear family in the last photo. This is not what the fruit of liberalism has produced in America, and this is especially the case for black Americans. In post-slavery America, nothing has been more devastating to black Americans than liberalism. It has resulted in un-paralleled poverty, dependence, joblessness, out-of-wedlock births, deaths (abortion), and the like. All of America would do well to remember this every time they vote. 

Update: It looks like some Atlanta stooges have bought what the Georgia democrats are selling. See here.

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

Monday, October 20, 2014

Skimpy School Lunch Outrage Misguided

If you've been on the internet at all the last five days or so, you've almost certainly seen the following:

The photo is of a rather skimpy school lunch taken by 17-year-old Kaytlin Shelton who is a student at Chickasha Public Schools in Chickasha, Oklahoma. Several media outlets have reported on this and much outrage has ensued. This is especially true of those in conservative circles who are eager to blame Michelle Obama and her new school nutrition rules. Yes, the nutrition nonsense pushed by the First Lady is yet another example of the overreach of Big Government, but as soon as I saw this, I knew that several things, besides the lunch, were amiss. 

Primarily, why is a girl, who evidently owns a phone with a camera, unable to afford a decent lunch? Of course, her phone could very well be an Obama phone. I suppose this sorry episode at least gives us more insight into the Obama's: Michelle, it seems, is just not as capable with lunches as is Barack with phones.

Kaytlin took the photo home and showed it to her parents. Her father, Vince Holton concluded, "I can go pay a dollar for a Lunchable and get more food in it." My reply: Great! Why don't you? 

Evidently, the reason Mr. Holton doesn't take it upon himself to provide for his daughter, is that he has bought the liberal lie that it's always someone else's responsibility. “Schools are responsible for children while they’re at school,” he said, adding that, “They’re responsible for feeding the children.”

Further complicating the matter is the fact that young Kaytlin is eating for two. That's right, she's pregnant with a little girl. I have just one question for the Shelton's (and the Holton's): Whose responsibility is it to feed the baby after she's born? 

If the Shelton's (or Holton's) truly need help, that's fine, and I imagine there are plenty of individuals and/or organizations in their area who are ready, willing, and able to provide it--including, though it should be to a very limited extent--government organizations. However, when you become significantly dependent on government for your provision, get ready for more cauliflower and crackers. 

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

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Liberals Wage War on the Truth

(A version of this appeared earlier here as "The Devil and the Democratic Party." This version also appears on American Thinker.)

When it comes to political “wars,” in spite of the meme perpetuated by most liberals, no one is more hawkish than modern liberals and the political party that they own, the Democrat Party. By and large since the 1960s, their efforts are summed up by one succinct and extremely accurate appellation: a war on the truth.

In the history of our nation, only the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century rival the political deception employed by today’s liberals that lead the modern Democrat Party. Support of everything from abortion, to gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, a redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, and an enslaving welfare state have made today’s Democrat Party little more than a modern-day Mephistopheles. Instead of magic to lure their Faustian targets, today’s Democrats employ, among other things, bribery, class warfare, fear, greed, lust, propaganda, scientism, vengeance, and violence.

This is really unsurprising. When your politics regularly conflict with absolute truth, constant deception is required. The evidence is, of course, all around us. This is especially the case given that we are in the midst of another election season. Take note of the political ads run by Democrats. How long before we get to meet the next Julia or Pajama Boy? How many times will we get to hear about, if elected, what Democrats will do in order to give out more goodies from the government? Where will the next fraudulent statistics in the “War on Women” originate?

How much “linguistic limbo” will Democrats perform in order blandly to describe their embracing of the “right” to kill children in the womb? (Or they simply video their abortions and tell us that everything is “super great!”) What deceit will liberals use to explain or embrace the fiscal and medical disaster that is Obamacare? How many times will we get to hear the phrase “marriage equality” (knowing full well that the liberal position on marriage also “discriminates”)?

How far away will Democrats attempt to run from what they really are in order to keep themselves in power? Liberals all over the country are running from Obama and their own party in an attempt to win elections. As most who are following this election season know well, Democrats are going so far as to avoid the label “Democrat” or even admit that they voted for Obama.

In Kansas, Greg Orman is a Democrat running as an Independent. He has shamelessly refused to say with which party he would caucus if elected. “Truth makes the Devil blush,” wrote English historian Thomas Fuller. As liberalism has created a culture that is nearly bereft of shame, today’s Democrats rarely blush, even as they mock their wheelchair-bound opponents. This usually happens only when someone becomes a political liability (as did the Democrat candidate that Orman replaced) and not because some proper moral standard has been violated.

If Orman does win, as the Wall Street Journal notes, he will most certainly owe his election to Washington Democrats. Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes squirmed like Jim Carrey in “Liar Liar” as she attempted to avoid revealing to the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board whether she voted for Obama in the last presidential election. Mary Landrieu and Michelle Nunn have played similar games as they try to win U.S. Senate seats in conservative states.

Given how far our culture has fallen morally, getting elected in the United States these days is much more challenging when you are accountable to absolute truths. As I noted earlier this year, because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular, liberals today generally have an easier time “playing politics” than conservatives—especially Christian conservatives.

When asked recently how to break the stalemate in the culture war that divides American conservatives and liberals, Catholic scholar George Weigel replied, “When you have a gnostic philosophy that ignores the very fabric of reality—and it is wed to a coercive state—it’s hard to know where to go.”

Ignoring “the very fabric of reality” is a frequent practice of modern liberals. Liberalism is so far removed from truth and reality that many liberals today can’t even acknowledge explicit evil when confronted with it. Ben Affleck has plenty of company among his fellow leftists when it comes to denying the rotten fruit of Islam. As the recent exchange with fellow liberal Bill Maher illustrated, many American liberals, in the name of the supreme virtue of liberalism—tolerance—will eagerly and angrily deny lesser virtues of their “faith.”

“Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions,” wrote G.K. Chesterton. A “man without convictions” who frequently “ignores the very fabric of reality” and who is enthusiastically “wed to a coercive state” is an apt description of modern liberals, but not perfect. In spite of what they themselves might think—lost in their fallacy that is today’s tolerance—liberals are not completely tolerant, and thus not devoid of convictions.

The convictions of modern liberalism are numerous and growing: Abortion, homosexuality, hook-ups, same-sex marriage, gender confusion, man-made global warming, universal healthcare, income redistribution, and whatever is the next perversion or deceit that will strike at the heart of biblical truths.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” helped launch the American Revolution. If America is to remain, we need a spiritual revolution bringing us back to those truths that were once so “self-evident.”

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