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/AND NOW: Trevor's Columns Archived:

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Sex: The Supreme Issue in the City of Man

It has come to pass, that though there are very many and great issues facing our great nation—issues with marked differences—for far too many on today’s left, nothing is of greater importance than matters that impact their efforts at “four [or more] bare legs in a bed.” Like the Epicureans centuries ago, modern liberals have concluded that humanity’s highest good is achieved in physical pleasure—especially sex.

If this wasn’t clear before the election of Donald Trump, no less than the day after President Trump took office, Hillary’s hedonists made sure we understood what really matters to those who, as Augustine put it, “wish to live after the flesh.” Remember the “March of the Nasty Women?” Or maybe you recall it as the “P*ssy Riot.” Whatever designation you prefer, on January 21, 2017, hundreds of thousands of vagina-obsessed fools paraded around D.C. in their vagina hats, displaying their vulgar posters, and again reminded most everyone why Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

And they continue to remind us. Whether demanding that men be allowed into women’s restrooms, that girls be allowed into boys’ clubs, that boys be allowed to take trophies from girls, that we fix homosexual infertility; whether rampant STDs (and the sick celebration of such sickness), rampant pornography use, girls with penises, little boys as drag queens, drag queen story time, pronoun bullying, normalizing pedophilia, celebrating bestiality; and of course, whether killing children in the womb, or legally redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, liberals have time and again demonstrated themselves to be firmly entrenched in the “City of Man.”

In his historic and magnificent work, City of God, Augustine declares that there are “no more than two kinds of human society…The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh [those who reside in the ‘City of Man’], the other of those who wish to live after the spirit [those who reside in the ‘City of God’].” Though Augustine was clear that the “works of the flesh” are not merely sexual in nature, he also makes clear that those who are slaves to sexual lust cannot occupy the City of God.

Only a slave to lust could produce an ad entitled “Protect Our Freedom to F*ck.” It’s too vulgar to provide a link. The title, along with the knowledge that the ad comes from Planned Parenthood of New York, is enough for any discerning person to understand just how vulgar is the ad. However, LifeSite News provides a good description, noting “it’s a surreal blend of slavish adherence to the current politically-correct orthodoxy and a complete surrender to senseless vulgarity.”

Like the “nasty” women’s march, or virtually any Hollywood award show, or most every Black Lives Matter gathering, the outrageous Planned Parenthood ad is just another ugly liberal temper tantrum. This time the fit was in response to President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. There were plenty of other similar meltdowns over Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Why the ugly outrage over the courts? Because what the court has given, the court can take away. And for decades, the courts have been a great ally to liberals and their agenda—especially their wicked sexual agenda. Most all of the angry hysterics over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Kavanaugh have been driven by the fear that courts will take away the legal cover they’ve long provided for abortion and the perverse LGBT agenda.

Of course, because such legal matters would be in the hands of the states (and legislators and voters)—where they belong—a reversal of Roe, Obergefell, and the like, would do little to eliminate abortion and sexual perversion from our culture. Thus, whatever the result of Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court, our battles in these grave matters will continue.

However, liberals don’t see it this way. They see any reversal by the courts of any tenet of their “highest good” as an attack on their “right” to rule their own world. This is really the heart of the matter in our moral wars. In other words, the question before us is: Should we live according to our own rules and laws, or is there a higher standard to which we are held personally accountable and upon which our human laws should rest?

Instead of one who lives “after the flesh,” a more apt description of an inhabitant of the City of Man—one that Augustine also employs—is one who “lives according to himself”—or one who wants the “freedom” to rule his own world. Augustine notes that this makes mankind “like the devil. For the devil too, wished to live according to himself when he did not abide in the truth.”

Thus the City of God vs. the City of Man is a conflict rooted in competing notions of truth. The satanic City of Man is filled with those who wish to live “according to themselves,” while the City of God contains those who live “according to God.”

Along with the pervasive infection of sexual sin in our culture at large, the enemy of mankind has used sexual deceit to divide even the church. Virtually every conflict over dogma in the church today is due to the lies of the enemy on matters in the sexual realm. In a sad attempt to redefine truth, leftist Christians—if there is even such a thing—have made widespread compromise with the truth on sex.

For years now we’ve had churches willing to embrace same-sex “marriage,” and even promote the killing of children in the womb. So-called “clergy” have now stooped so low as to make preparations for making abortion available in the pews. Of course, to do such evil, the Bible has to be effectively ignored—and it is. Tragically, because of the fear to embrace fully what God has revealed when it comes to sex, even those in the evangelical church are seeking to distance themselves from the Word of God.

Ironically, modern liberals have long accused conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—of being obsessed with sex. Yet, as we can plainly see, it is liberals who are consumed with the lustful desire to have their way in the sexual realm. For the most part, it’s why they hate President Trump, it’s why they hate the GOP, it’s why they hate conservatives, and it’s especially why they hate Christians and Christianity.

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

The Sermon That Helped Ratify the U.S. Constitution (Taken From "The Miracle and Magnificence of America")

On December 6, 1787, by unanimous consent, Delaware became the first state to ratify the new Constitution. New Jersey and Georgia soon followed, also by unanimous consent. On December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, Pennsylvania approved the Constitution. In 1788, Connecticut, Massachusetts (by a close 187 to 168 vote), Maryland, and South Carolina made it eight states. New Hampshire was the state that put the Constitution into effect.

Christian ministers played no small role in the matter. Samuel Langdon was a distinguished theologian and scholar. He graduated from Harvard in 1740, went on to become a prominent Congregational minister, and was president of Harvard University from 1774 to 1780. He was also a delegate to the New Hampshire convention that ratified (by the slim margin of 57 to 46) the U.S. Constitution in 1788. New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to ratify the Constitution. In order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in favor of the U.S. Constitution, Langdon delivered an “election sermon” entitled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States.

After beginning by quoting Deuteronomy 4:5-8 in his sermon, Langdon noted,
[T]he Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin. Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.
Langdon then gave an account of how Moses, upon the wise counsel of his father-in-law Jethro, “the priest of Midian,” set up a republican form of government, with representatives (“leaders,” “rulers,” “judges,” depending on the biblical translation) from groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. In addition, 70 elders, or wise-men—a type of national Senate as described by biblical and Jewish scholars—were selected by Moses and approved by the consent of the people.

Langdon added,
A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into aristocracy, or absolute monarchy. But God did not leave a people, wholly unskilled in legislation, to make laws for themselves: he took this important matter wholly into His own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tables, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them by Moses a complete code of judicial laws.
Langdon goes on to describe how this republican form of government helped the nation of Israel grow from a “mere mob” (if only the eighteenth century French had taken notice) to a “well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast!” After detailing Israel’s later struggles—they would eventually “[neglect] their government, [corrupt] their religion, and [grow] dissolute in their morals”—Langston exhorted his fellow citizens to learn from the nation of Israel.
That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue. By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations: whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed, and contemptible.
On September 21, 1788 the Constitution and the new government of the United States went into effect. Just over three years later, the Bill of Rights would be added. By 1790, when Rhode Island, by a vote of 34 to 32, joined the Union, it was unanimous.

On July 4, 1837, in a speech delivered in the town of Newburyport, Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, and the sixth U.S. President, proclaimed,
Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth?
Witnessing the events of the Revolution as a boy, and no-doubt hearing from his father of the raucous debates that gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then going on to serve his country in many various capacities, John Quincy Adams saw that Christmas and Independence Day were fundamentally linked. He understood well that the Founders took the principles that Christ brought to the world and incorporated them into civil government. This is what makes the U.S. government so distinctive, why it has been so durable, and why, to this day, we are the greatest nation the world has ever known.

Happy Independence Day!

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, July 2, 2018

The Marriage “Precedent”

There’s “precedent” and then there’s precedent. It seems for Maine’s Senator Susan Collins—who’s never been considered a conservative and is the very definition of a RINO—precedent is everything, except when it isn’t. According to Townhall recently,
Maine's moderate Republican Senator Susan Collins told CNN's Jake Tapper today that she would not be supporting a Supreme Court nominee who has “demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade” because, in her mind, that would be a justice who does not respect established precedent.
Collins added,
I want a judge who will apply the law to the facts of the case with fidelity to the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established, and no less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing.
Because, you know, when you are killing the most helpless and innocent among us, you’re supposed to think “fidelity to the Constitution.” A long-time U.S. Senator—especially one who is so often called upon concerning the same moral issues, should not be so careless with her words. Roe v. Wade is not a right in and of itself but rather is a court case that found a “right” that, prior to 1973, had escaped every previous jurist in the history of the U.S. judicial system.

In getting their perverse agenda into law, if only today’s liberals would limit themselves to things that are actually “constitutional.” Even the pro-slavery Americans of the 18th century were willing to get their way via the Constitution. And legal slavery was forever ended in the United States constitutionally, via an amendment, not by the mere ruling of a judge or a majority of judges.

But winning elections and actually achieving law the way our founders intended has proven far too difficult for liberals and the party they own. Thus, the courts have long been a favorite tool of the modern left. Don’t get me wrong, though. As November, 2016 well demonstrates, liberals love to win elections—and hate to lose them! Because so many of them have made a god of government, liberals very much enjoy obtaining all the political power possible, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, and they are loathe to see it in the hands of those opposed to their perverse agenda.

As most today well know, much of what modern liberals hold dear was achieved because of the efforts of rogue judges who happened to find in the U.S. Constitution what had so long escaped so many others (because, of course, it was never really there). Liberals look at the Constitution like an NBA referee: based on who’s playing the game, the rules are changed. Of course, liberals wouldn’t describe it as such; they simply justify this foolish mental and moral gymnastics by claiming a “living Constitution.”

As the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia—who repeatedly stood against such nonsense—said, “the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document…(it) is an enduring document but not a ‘living’ one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.”

And once liberals magically find a “right” in the Constitution—and thus, “make law”—we’re supposed to revere said law because of “precedent.” How absurd. If “precedent” really mattered to anyone with a sound legal and moral mind, Obergefell v. Hodges would’ve been laughed out of the courtroom in 30 seconds.

The vast majority of states that actually took the trouble to deal with marriage legislatively —including even Collins’ home state of Maine—overwhelmingly voted to establish the biblical definition of marriage as law. In other words, when actually put to a vote, 31 states in the U.S.—including very liberal states such as Maine and California—soundly rejected same-sex “marriage.” How’s that for “precedent?” By one single vote in the U.S. Supreme Court (Good Riddance, Justice Kennedy!), liberals wiped this away.

One might argue that “precedent” in the legal sense is a judicial term that refers to the rulings of a higher court. As notes,
In the modern legal system, the term precedent refers to a rule, or principle of law, that has been established by a previous ruling by a court of higher authority, such as an appeals court, or a supreme court.
Of course, there is no higher court than the one led by Him who made us. Dr. Martin Luther King alluded to this in his letter from the Birmingham jail. He noted, “[T]here are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws.” And we agree with Dr. King, who agreed with Saint Augustine that, “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Dr. King also reminds us of the difference:
A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
For human beings, there is no law more “eternal” than that which defines marriage. As I’ve often noted before, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. As the first three chapters of Genesis reveal, before we were even aware of the preciousness of life—because there was no death—humans were made aware of what is a marriage.

Additionally, whenever Jesus, or any other of the New Testament writers—who often used marriage as an illustration of the relationship between Jesus and His church—spoke of marriage, it was always as the union of one man and one woman. Whether life, marriage, and the like, there’s nothing with more precedent than the eternal truth. We would all—especially U.S. Senators and those on the highest courts in our land—do well to remember such.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

I Told You the GOP Would Save Money on Midterm Ads

As I noted barely two weeks ago, as long as the unhinged left continues to be-clown themselves, "the RNC will have to spend next to nothing when it comes to creating ads for the midterm elections." In other words, radical liberals will themselves write the ads for the GOP. The recently released ad below illustrates this perfectly:

And there you have it. Thank you Bernie Sanders, Kathy Griffin, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Samantha Bee, Bill Maher, Johnny Depp, "Nasty" Madonna, et al! Of course these fools should repent and turn from their wickedness, but almost certainly they will not. The modern left seems too devoted to the myriad of perverse causes that defines modern liberalism. Thus, the electoral choice for Americans could not be more clear. Again, by whose morality will you be governed America?

Copyright 2018, 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, June 26, 2018

Whose Truth? Whose Morality?

On my website, I have a “Quotable Quotes” page. The quotes are loosely grouped by topic, and at the top is this one by Winston Churchill:
Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.
This has long been a favorite of mine, and several years ago I had a poster-size version of it printed so I could display it in my classroom. It cost me less than $10 to do this—a real bargain when one considers that The New York Times wants you to spend $300 to sport a t-shirt ($450 gets you the hoodie) that bears their new slogan (purportedly written by Churston Winchill, a transgender Times intern who majored in angry protesting and vulgar tweeting)—Truth. It’s more important now than ever.

This replaces the old slogan, which of course was, Shut Up, You Racist, Homophobic Bigot! T-shirts bearing this can now be found at a discount price of only $50 in the LGBT section of Target stores. At least I think so. We stopped shopping at Target years ago when they couldn’t seem to grasp the truth about males and females.

Only really smart people—such as those who read “all the ‘truth’ that’s fit to print”—would ever spend $300 for a t-shirt. And as one astute observer noted, if you’re a liar, you’ll want to wear it every day. This means we should be seeing them daily all across bastions of liberalism—college campuses, Hollywood, Planned Parenthood lobbies, same-sex “weddings,” the offices of the SPLC, Red Hen restaurants, and the like.

Instead of its pasta, Red Hen restaurants are now famous for partisanship—and, like most every liberal these days, “panic, ignorance, and malice.” Instead of angry politics, the Virginia location that turned away Sarah Sanders claimed they were doing so based on “moral convictions.” How absurd.

Of course, as most now well know, the “moral convictions” of modern liberalism allow for the killing of the most innocent and helpless among us, the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity, the attempted redefinition of gender, the embracing of virtually every sexual perversion imaginable, and so on. In other words, a modern liberal clamoring about “moral convictions” is like Larry Flynt complaining about adultery.

This so-called “moral conviction,” this so-called “truth” has nothing to do with morality or truth at all, but rather is something nearly as old as humanity itself: the desire to rule one’s own world. As Francis A. Schaeffer put it in chapter one—The Abolition of Truth and Morality—of his seminal book A Christian Manifesto, such a worldview has placed mankind “at the center of all things, and making him the measure of all things.” And those who live according to this worldview “have no sufficient base for either society or law,” and thus, they certainly have no business in any positions of power.

This humanistic view of reality led even a former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1946-1953), Frederick M. Vinson, to conclude, “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes.” Vinson said this prior to 1950, and his ignorant proverb has indeed proven to be, as Al Mohler put it, a “dark prophecy” of things to come. For decades, liberals across the U.S. have embraced Vinson’s vision of a relativistic society.

Therefore, truth and morality are not eternal and from the One who made all things, but rather are merely a matter of taste. As the Humanist Manifesto II put it, “moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.”

Thus, if one “needs” to kill her unborn child, or one is “interested” in “marrying” his homosexual partner, or if a man wants to “experience” what it’s like to live as a woman, so be it. If one “needs” to conduct an illegal investigation in order to win an election, or one has a vested “interest” in taking guns away from law abiding Americans, or one wants to “experience” college without having to pay for it, nothing or no one should stand in the way.

Whether in their personal lives, their politics, and even their theology, today’s liberals are blind to the notion that some things are settled for all time, and they have written their own moral code. While hypocritically touting “tolerance,” they insist that the rest of us either submit to their rule or “get the hell out!” Only God, or those operating under His authority, has the right to such an ultimatum, and—in spite of the insistence by fools like Maxine Waters that “God’s on our side,”—most liberals long ago decided that they didn’t want to play by His rules.

“Truth makes the Devil blush” wrote English historian Thomas Fuller. As liberalism has created a culture that is nearly bereft of shame, and in spite of their increasingly unhinged and immoral behavior, and because they are mostly ignorant of the “incontrovertible” truth, today’s liberals rarely blush. This usually happens only when someone becomes a political liability and not because some proper moral standard has been violated.

Again, what we are really dealing with here is competing views of truth. As noted apologist William Lane Craig put it when writing about the Christian perspective on homosexuality, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.” And if taste determines truth, then we’re all at the mercy of whoever’s in charge, because, ultimately we’re all intolerant. It’s simply a matter of two things: who’s right, and who are Americans going to put in charge.

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

The Left Should Avoid Any and All Debates Concerning “The Children”

In their latest attempt to swing this fall’s election toward the democrats, the left now wants us to focus on “the children.” They haven’t really thought this through. Liberals the world over should work hard to avoid any debate that significantly involves the lives and wellbeing of children. Most anyone armed with even the slightest bit of the truth when it comes to liberalism and “the children” can easily quiet the left in virtually any debate that involves children or the family.

The first bit of truth that any liberal should have to answer for when it comes to children is, if liberalism is so concerned for the welfare of young people, why has the left spent decades fighting for the “right” to kill the most innocent and helpless among us? Ever since the American left decided to ignore sound science and morality and the dehumanization of the unborn became standard dogma for those who support the Democrat Party, children in their mothers’ wombs have been little more than a political headache for the modern left.

Since the 1960s, countless liberals across the U.S. have won elections by promising to keep legal their wicked “final solution” for those who want to be able to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm. Thus, for the left, children are only a concern when the timing is right—when kids are “wanted”—and when the political benefits are favorable for democrats.

Even longer than they have ignored the right to life, American liberals have worked to build a massive welfare state that has played a terrible role in the destruction of the family—especially the black family. Stealing a bit of my thunder here, about an hour after beginning this piece, Rush Limbaugh again reminded Americans which political party enabled generations of children—again, especially black children—to be separated from their parents.
The Democrat Party exists on dependency, and people that escape it pose a problem. So don’t buy that the Democrats care about separated families. Because, after all — and let me remind you — the Democrat Party literally subsidized single motherhood in the black community for decades. It was called AFDC.

The Democrat Party promoted a welfare policy that gave single women additional money for every child they had. The father need not ever be around. In many cases, the father was not even known, the father was not even identified because the Democrat Party assumed the role.

Actually, the Democrats made the government assume the role of father. If you want to talk about honestly separating families, the Democrat Party wrote the book on it and promoted it and campaigned on it and won elections on the basis of separated families where the government took over the economic responsibilities of the father.
As I noted in 2015, Barack Obama continued the democrats’ long practice of promising and giving away “free” stuff from Uncle Sam’s “stash.” Of course, then candidate Hillary Clinton pledged to do more of the same. This is just one of the reasons why she was rejected and Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. The welfare state created by democrats and their enablers has been as effective as abortion at “ripping” apart families in the U.S.

What’s more, the countries from which thousands of parents are sending their unaccompanied children to make the long and dangerous trek to the U.S. have long been dominated by leftist politics and policies. Thus, these nations have devolved into the world’s “crapholes” from which many of their citizens are eager to flee.

Working in concert with the welfare state is the wicked sexual agenda of the left. Whether pornography, promiscuity, or the LGBT agenda, since at least the middle of the twentieth century, the many sexual perversions of liberalism have wrought decades of death and destruction upon children, adults, and families alike in America.

Among other tragic consequences, this has led to rampant divorce, disease, and out-of-wedlock births—which, among other terrible outcomes, has given us violence, crime, filthy and deadly neighborhoods, dangerous and ineffective schools, and the like. What’s more, fatherlessness—a tragic outcome liberals have long championed—is the leading cause of poverty in the U.S. In their efforts to buy votes and remain in power, democrats have doomed generations of American children to growing up poor.

Not being content with destroying marriage and family as God gave it to us, liberals have taken the previously unthinkable and duped tens of millions of Americans—including those occupying the highest court in our land—into accepting it, or even embracing it, as normal. We were deceptively told that, since no harm comes to others, “consenting adults” ought to be able to do as they wish in their bedrooms.

Ignoring the eternal truths of their Creator, when “consenting adults” do as they wish, it’s often children who suffer the most. Millions of American children today are suffering under the myriad of lies pushed by the perverse LGBT agenda. Some are in homes without a mother or a father simply because liberals decided that it was within their “right” to redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity.

Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of U.S. children who are stuck in government schools are not only being taught that homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” are normal, but that biology doesn’t determine a person’s sex. Because of liberalism, children are being read to by drag queens, “entertained” by drag queens, and even turned into drag queens! Because of liberalism, children in government schools are being provided with a study guide on transgenderism that instructs kids that a gender-deluded lifestyle is just another choice for a young person to make.

Because of liberalism, children in government schools are being provided with a George Soros-funded “sexual health toolkit” that, among other immoralities, and in spite of the significant health disparities suffered by homosexual teens, instructs them on homosexual behavior, including sodomy. Because of liberalism, those who wish to flee the immoral and unhealthy homosexual lifestyle are being hindered from doing so, and in this backwards process, liberals have banned the Bible. Because of liberalism, in addition to invading girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms, and as I warned would be the case, boys are taking trophies from girls.

If we can’t trust liberals to instruct children properly on who is a male and who is a female; if we can’t trust liberals to tell the truth on something as old and foundational as marriage and the family; if we can’t trust liberals to work to ensure that children are raised by a mother and a father; if we can’t trust liberals to protect children from sexual perversion; if we can’t trust liberals to guard the very lives of the most helpless and innocent among us, we should trust them on nothing when it comes to “the children.”

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, 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 14, 2018

The Ignorant, Godless Left Can’t Help Themselves

It seems the Republican National Committee’s (RNC) cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is even more pronounced than the numbers—$43.8 million to $3.4 million—indicate. As long as democrats like Nancy Pelosi vainly continue to attempt to ignore, downplay, or even bad-mouth good to excellent to record breaking (in more ways than one) economic numbers—and in the process be-clown themselves—the RNC will have to spend next to nothing when it comes to creating ads for the midterm elections.

Pelosi, in particular, is the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. Cementing herself as one of our nation’s most morally and economically ignorant citizens, just prior to the GOP passing—and President Trump signing—sweeping tax reform legislation in December of last year, Mrs. Pelosi went on a historically foolish rant.

Awash in hyperbole and hypocrisy—remember, she leads the party that stands for, among other immoral outrageousness, the “right” to kill the most helpless and innocent among us, the “right” for boys to take trophies from girls, and the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity—she accused republicans of embracing “moral obscenity and unrepentant greed.”

Blind to her extreme “plutocracy hypocrisy,” the 78-year-old grandmother, who’s been in Congress for over 31 years and has a reported net worth of over $100 million, claimed that a vote for the GOP tax bill was “a vote to install a permanent plutocracy in our nation.” Forgetting that she represents those who hate our Founders and our military and those who think children are a “punishment,” Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the GOP tax bill “does violence to the vision of our Founders” and “disrespects the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. And it betrays the future and betrays the aspirations of our children.”

After the GOP tax bill went into effect and businesses and corporations started shelling out large bonuses and raises, Mrs. Pelosi then had the difficult duty of pretending that these were not really good things. Her “crumbs” comments have already come back to haunt her, and they should continue to do so.

Of course Nancy Pelosi is far from alone in her efforts to try to keep the American electorate from believing what they are seeing when it comes to the U.S. economy. Chuck Schumer echoed her “crumbs” comment; Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined in the “Liberals Against a Magnificent Economy” (otherwise known as LAME—I hear they’ll be opening for Madonna soon) chorus; and naturally, the establishment media aided and abetted these absurd attempts at deceit.

Along with trying to put increased wages in a bad light, Pelosi and her ilk also had the unenviable task of trying to convince Americans that more jobs is a bad thing. While trying to distract from record employment numbers, Pelosi attempted to disown the healthcare debacle that continues to plague millions of Americans. In other words, along with trying to convince American voters than increased wage and jobs numbers are somehow “fake news,” democrats are also hoping to dupe us into forgetting that it is they who wrecked our healthcare system.

The awesome May jobs report gave the left-wing media another opportunity to remind us how smart they are and how stupid President Trump is. They did about as well as they usually do. CNN’s Don Lemon said, “There’s no question today’s job report is good news, including the news that we’re as close as we’ve ever been to full employment in the black community. But what’s full employment without full respect.”

As Andrew Klavan aptly put it, “Don apparently thinks Americans don’t respect all black people. Who’s going to break the news that it’s just him we don’t respect?” Instead of the great news on jobs, NBC wanted to focus on—and pretend that they weren’t the only ones focused on—Trump’s “premarket tweet.” CNN’s chief national correspondent John King dared everyone to find a President of the United States prior to Trump “talking about, Tweeting about, communicating about the unemployment report before it came out.” Of course, someone took his dare and proved him laughably wrong.

Things have gotten so good economically—or bad, depending on your election hopes—and so deep is the left’s hatred for Trump and his administration that liberals have stooped to “A pox on you and your economy!” On a recent episode of his Real Time show, Bill Maher declared,
Can I ask about the economy because this economy is going pretty well? I feel like the bottom has to fall out at some point. And by the way, I'm hoping for it. Because I think one way you get rid of Trump is a crashing economy. So, please, bring on the recession. Sorry if that hurts people, but it's either root for a recession or you lose your democracy.
Actually it’s a republic—if we can keep it. And as is sometimes attributed to Ben Franklin himself, when the people find they can vote themselves money—as often happens when there is a ballot cast for a democrat—that will herald the end of the republic. In other words, Maher and his minions face a political Catch-22: to elect more democrats, liberals need a “crashing economy,” but the quickest way to a “crashing economy” is to elect more democrats. Good luck with that, Bill.

Maher’s selfish drivel was only upstaged by that of Robert De Nero—I mean “Niro.” Sorry, I sometimes confuse vulgar, debauched Romans. With his epic “F-Trump” rant, De Niro and his enthusiastically approving audience at the Tony Awards again reminded us—as if we needed reminding—of where hedonistic Hollywood stands on the political and moral spectrum.

Whether De Niro or Samantha Bee, Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert—the more they open their foul, godless mouths, the more they also remind us why Trump was elected and why liberals and liberalism have been so widely rejected.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, June 11, 2018

A Near-100% Guarantee on Preventing STDs

Despite being sexually active for over two decades,—I know, “TMI,” but you can hardly discuss sex and not have a little “TMI”—my wife and I have never spent even five seconds worrying about, or one dime preventing or treating an STD. This is chiefly due to the fact that our sexual activity exactly corresponds to our marriage years. We’re teaching our four children—ages 9, 12, 14, and 16—that if they conduct themselves similarly, they too will never have to ponder preventing or treating an STD.

For us, “conducting themselves similarly” means adhering to what God has said about sexual behavior. Namely, that the only rightful place for sex is within marriage. And marriage (How tragic that this even has to be said!) is ONLY the lifetime union of one man and one woman. That either of these statements is shocking or controversial—or even revealing—only goes to show how corrupt our culture has become when it comes to sexual morality.

Among other tragic outcomes, this corruption has led to an STD epidemic in the U.S. As I noted recently (more than once), according to The New York Times, a shocking 110 million Americans—more than one-third of our population—has an STD. A recent Drudge headline declared “STDs run rampant in USA.” The headline linked to a piece that reported on the “incredibly alarming numbers” of STDs in California.

Those were not the words of a reporter, but of Heidi Bauer, chief of the STD control branch of the California Department of Public Health. She added that the STD numbers in California amounted to “an epidemic.” Of course, Bauer’s solutions to their STD problem are the typical liberal California claptrap—i.e. condoms and cash.

According to Dr. Bauer—as is virtually always the case in these sad situations with those corrupted by liberalism—the solution to what ails us involves more money and bigger government. Along with blaming a lack of funding for public health programs for California’s rise in STDs, Dr. Bauer also blamed “the funneling of patients away from public health services toward primary care physicians.”

Of course, teaching kids the proper use of a condom is standard operating procedure for liberals when it involves anything dangerous in the sexual realm. According to The Daily Californian,
The STD Control Branch is approaching intervention through three different avenues: mandating sexual education in public schools, working with medical providers to ensure comprehensive STI testing and encouraging local health departments to ensure treatment for patients who test positive, according to Bauer.
The type of sex education The People’s Republic of Kalifornia would like to “mandate”—among other perverse things—provides a “sexual health toolkit” that is funded in part by the George Soros-connected Tides Center. According to Life Site News, this “toolkit”—among many other perverse things—“offers kids tips on using sex toys and anal lubricant. It defines ‘anal intercourse, ‘phone sex,’ and more as ‘common sexual behaviors’” and even has a section entitled “Wetter Makes It Better.”

In line with those who believe we have the right to rule our own world, the toolkit—or more aptly, “foolkit”—also tell kids that they may “[Have] Sex on Your Own Terms.” To clarify what this means, youngsters are provided with a “Relationship Bill of Rights.” This tells kids—kids!—that they have the “right” to:
  • Trust my feelings. 
  • Be with who I want, when I want, and how I want. 
  • Have sex when my partner AND I both want to. 
Is there any doubt that California’s—as well as the rest of America’s—STD epidemic is the result of such immoral information? Dr. Bauer also ignorantly concluded that California’s STD epidemic is “not confined to any particular group,” and she emphasized that the increases are across the board.

I can almost guarantee you that this is not true. As is the case across the rest of the world, there’s one group of Californians that are virtually STD free: monogamous, married (again: one man and one woman), early-committed Christians. In other words, those who decided—almost certainly because this was taught to them and modeled for them by their loving parents (a mother and a father)—prior to, or early in their teenage years, to follow Jesus and adhere to His teachings on sex.

This means celibacy unless married, and once married, complete sexual faithfulness to one’s spouse. If you live your life in such a way, it is nearly impossible to get an STD. This is not an easy path—especially in our sex-saturated culture—but as you’ve often heard, few things worthwhile are easy.

An STD-free life is just another peaceful and healthy benefit of the Christian lifestyle. And yes, Christians are generally healthier. This is a guiding principle behind the increasingly popular and growing number of Christian-based health insurance alternatives. These “health-care sharing groups” (my wife’s sister and her husband recently joined one) are marketed to “committed Christians” who must commit to, among other wise things, refraining from homosexual activity and extramarital sex.

As the left continues to force its immorality on the rest of us, don’t be surprised to see these types of healthcare alternatives grow even more popular. Thus, as almost always is the case in these situations, don’t be a bit surprised to see the left target these organizations. After all, remember, part of the goal of the left is complete acceptance of their perverse sexual agenda and vengeance upon all of those who resist.

Of course, one can be celibate, faithfully monogamous, STD-free, and otherwise healthy without being a Christian. However, outside of a faithful walk with our Creator, the immoral and dangerous sexual lifestyle of those corrupted by liberalism looms as a nearly irresistible temptation. In addition, no moral code has proved better than Christianity at producing a healthy, productive, responsible, and moral individual and society.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, 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, June 5, 2018

Barr and Bee: What Do They Really Represent?

So we’re supposed to believe that a Chick-fil-A hating, socialist loving, foul-mouthed former Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter, and 9/11 Truther who once sang the worst rendition of our National Anthem in the history of our nation—afterwards grabbing her crotch and spitting (even Keith Olbermann was critical)—is someone who accurately represents Trump voters. Of course The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC would have us believe that this is the case.

If only the real Roseanne were more like the TV version. But alas, we are left with the real thing. (I wonder: Who do liberals hate more right now?) As even the most elementary efforts to examine her personal and political past reveal, Roseanne Barr is certainly no conservative. Neither is she widely representative of a typical Trump voter.

She does, however, represent a great problem—for democrats. If someone with the liberal leanings of Roseanne Barr can be persuaded to vote for Trump—and if this can be replicated and repeated—democrats will remain the minority party for the foreseeable future. Just after Trump’s victory over Hillary, it was revealed—by a variety of sources—that Trump was able to peel off more than three times the percentage of Obama voters (13% to 4%) as Hillary was able to lure Romney voters.

If Roseanne embodies anything, she stands for those whose worldview is decidedly liberal, but nevertheless, voted for Trump. If similar numbers of today’s left are able to set aside their (literal) lust for sexual perversion and longing for a government sugar daddy, the democrats are in real electoral trouble. I suspect that more than anything else, this is why liberals were so quick to attack Barr and her show.

Samantha Bee, on the other hand, is anything but a contradiction. Like so many liberal “entertainers,” her foul and vulgar persona exemplify her politics. In other words, she could be the poster child for the always angry, endlessly anti-Trump “nasty” woman so common on the left today.

For all the left’s hyperbolic posturing about so-called “privilege” on the right, as David French recently alluded to, few today are more privileged than those who occupy the left-wing media. Whether news or entertainment, as long as the right—especially the Christian right—is the target, leftist mediacrats are nearly untouchable. Along with Bee, there are a myriad of examples.

After Roseanne’s gross insult of Valarie Jarrett, MSNBC invited Jarrett on their network to discuss the incident. On her left sat MSNBC host Al Sharpton. As Miss Jarrett herself might put it, and as Jeffrey Lord did put it, the event was a “teachable moment.” As Lord notes, whether blacks, whites, Jews, Chinese, Korean, Greeks, and so on, Sharpton has a loooong—often obscene and unapologetic—history of racial insults.

All of this was known when MSNBC hired him seven years ago. It was also known when Sharpton became an advisor to then President Obama; he was even described as Obama’s “go-to man on race.” Having Al Sharpton as your “go-to man on race” is like having Harvey Weinstein as your “go-to man on sexual harassment” or Keith Olbermann as your “go-to man on responsible social commentary.”

Olbermann is the perfect conservative-hating metrosexual male counterpart to the raging vagina hat-wearing feminazis exemplified by Ms. Bee. In spite of his lengthy history of using whatever media platform that will allow him to revoltingly weaponize the English language, ABC/Disney—who fired Roseanne quicker than you can say “Worst Person in the World”—continues to provide him with the opportunity to spew his hate.

Whether Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, and on, and on, and on, the left is littered with these hate-filled fools. Samantha Bee’s comments just happened to fall closest to Roseanne’s in their seemingly never-ending cycle of attacking anything or anyone that might put Donald Trump in a positive light.

And remember, these people hate Trump because of where they have placed their hope. Because they have foolishly placed most of their hope in the forces of this world—in other words, because they have made a god of government, and because Donald Trump currently represents the greatest threat to this false god—the Hollywood left is, and almost certainly will remain, unhinged in their efforts to stop him.

As long as President Trump acts on conservative—especially Christian conservative—principles, he is undermining the left’s attempts at remaking America into a nation our Founders would not recognize and reminds them that, at least to some extent, they are losing their grip on the American culture. Thus, he—and his allies—must be politically, or even personally, destroyed.

Samantha Bee is simply another agent in this attempted destruction and another voice preaching the perverse worldview that dominates modern liberalism. As long as she remains reliably faithful to the mission of promoting what is sacred to the modern left—unlike Roseanne Barr—she will be allowed to keep her job and continue her propaganda.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, May 28, 2018

Again: They Kneel for a LIE!

I remember when taking a knee in football was one of the most satisfying things in this life. It used to mean one of two things: a well-deserved respite from the grueling grind of sweltering practices during the hot and humid late summer weather of the pre-season or the final magnificent moments before a looming victory in America’s most popular sport.

I was privileged to play organized football only from 7th grade through 12th grade. (I’ve always said that I had NFL hands, but my place-kicker size, and tackle—or maybe tight-end—speed kept me out of “The League.”) My middle school coach was “Rolling Thunder” Roger Thurmond. He was dubbed such because he was a Vietnam veteran who lost both of his legs and thus (usually) coached from his wheel chair, and because he was perfectly fiery and fierce as he coached us to near-perfection—at least in my 8th grade year when we went 4-1.

Interesting anecdote: I’ve had a broken bone only twice in my life. It was the same bone both times: my right collar bone. The second time it happened was during tackling drills when I was in 10th grade. The first time it happened was when I was wrestling on the playground in first grade. The best part of the story: the same guy broke it both times! Even his name—Bart Black—rings of villainy! And the perfect conclusion to this anecdote: when we slinked off the playground in first grade to let our teachers know something was amiss, we were immediately sent indoors. In addition to robbing us of our playground privileges—and unaware of my broken bone (she thought I was trying to get out of trouble)—our teacher paddled both of us! How I miss those days!

There are more than a few men in the NFL these days who could use a good paddling and more than a few leftist talking-heads who could use a good lesson in the limits of “free speech.” As we must continue to endure the ongoing debate about NFL players taking a knee during the National Anthem, the commentary from sports pundits—who notoriously lean left, especially sports writers—is the most telling.

Of all people observing and commenting on this debate, sports journalists should understand better than most what are the boundaries of their First Amendment rights. This is especially true of sports talk-show commentators on TV and radio. Their ownership won’t allow them to say anything they want on any topic—especially when it comes to things deemed politically sensitive. Otherwise, viewers and listeners may tune out and there might be harm to the “infamous” bottom line. More than one such host has been let go from his or her job, suspended, demoted, or otherwise punished because he or she crossed a line on speech that ownership did not support.

In other words, anyone working for a private company has limits placed on his or her “free speech rights.” Yet as the debate over NFL players kneeling just won’t end, many pundits, NFL players themselves, and even ignorant and hypocritical (the NBA already has a ban on Anthem protests) NBA coaches have made this an issue about free speech. Just another sad consequence of the government’s virtual monopoly on education, I suppose.

No, this isn’t really about “free speech.” If a group of NFL players used the field to protest against same-sex “marriage,” abortion, or some other wicked perversion held dear by the left, I’m almost certain that many of those now yammering about “free speech” would quickly revert to “shut up and play.” Also, where are these First Amendment champions when it comes to real speech infringement—such as what we are witnessing all across America’s college campuses?

What this is really about is why a group of attention-seeking, privileged multi-millionaires have decided to use company time to disrespect their fans and their country. In other words, why do they kneel? If these kneelers decided to heed sound advice and use their own time to make their political and “social” points, would it make their cause any more honest? In short, no. It would make their league more profitable, but their cause would still be foolish and misguided.

Again—as shockingly few are willing to point out—they kneel for a lie! As I’ve noted before, the lie is this:
There’s widespread and institutionalized racism inside America’s law enforcement agencies, and black Americans are especially targeted. This racism has led to the deaths of a disproportionate number of innocent black Americans. In order to stop this heinous activity, we need more gun control legislation, more wealth redistribution, more job and education programs, [and the like] and thus Americans need to elect more Democrats.
The unpopular fact is that black Americans are much safer in the presence of law enforcement than they are in black communities, especially when such communities—because of things like the “Ferguson Effect”—have little or no police presence. The statistics makes this clear.
  • According to the CDC, the leading cause of death among black males ages 15-34 is homicide. 
  • According to the FBI, the vast majority (over 90%) of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. 
  • For decades, black Americans have been more likely to be victims of violent crime (almost always at the hands of other black Americans) than are white Americans. 
  • Time and again it is revealed: when police stop policing, crime increases, and black citizens suffer disproportionately. 
  • The most dangerous neighborhoods in America—all with large (usually majority) black populations—are dominated by Democrats and liberal politics. 
What’s more, according to Heather MacDonald, a police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black perpetrator than an unarmed black person is to be killed by a cop. In other words, it’s much more dangerous to be a police officer staring down a black perpetrator than it is to be an unarmed black suspect encountering a cop. And perhaps the most shocking statistic of all: Black men in the U.S. are half as likely to die if they are in prison than if they are not. As Yahoo News noted,
Less than one percent of men (more than half of whom were black) in total died while in prison, and there was no difference between black and white inmates in that regard.
As Yahoo also points out,
If prisoners are better off in prison, then what does that say about the conditions plaguing low-income communities and the services being offered to people of color?
What it says—and what many have long been saying, including some wise members of the NFL— is that, when it comes to violence and crime in our communities we don’t have a skin problem—as in the case with our schools—we have a sin problem.

Specifically, we have a breakdown of the family problem. The fatherlessness that plagues our urban areas—especially black families—has led to a myriad of problems, not the least of which is criminal activity. This is the real problem we should all be on our knees about, and to which high-profile athletes should devote their attention.

(See this column at The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, 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, May 24, 2018

Another School Shooting: Why and What Should We Do?

Two days before the recent mass murder of students at a Santa Fe high school in Texas, very near my home, a 13-year-old girl was killed when the car her father was driving hydroplaned and collided with a school bus. The girl’s father—who was also seriously injured—may face vehicular homicide charges because his tires were too slick.

Two weeks ago we endured the third anniversary of the death of my beloved pastor and father-in-law, David Fitzpatrick. David was killed by an impaired (alcohol and drugs), hit-and-run motorist. David’s killer pleaded guilty to first degree vehicular homicide, among other charges, and is now spending (hopefully) many years in prison.

Last month, just minutes from our home, a man with a history of domestic violence murdered his ex-wife and her sister, shot and wounded a 16-year old, and then killed himself. Thirteen-year-old and two-year-old children also in the home were spared serious injury.

On average, there are about 50 homicides a day in the U.S. Whether through criminal neglect or murderous intent, upon the sudden and tragic death of a loved one—among a myriad of other questions—each day in the U.S., thousands of Americans are left to ask “Why?”

I recall vividly the gut-wrenching moments on May 4, 2015 when we knew there was a bicyclist down in the area where my father-in-law used to ride. The calls to David’s cell phone that would never be answered; the rushed and lonely drive from my job to the crash site, still not knowing for sure whether David was alive; the moment I encountered the Georgia State Patrol officer who confirmed our worst fears; pulling into my mother-in-law’s driveway and watching her, my wife, and my wife’s sister awash in grief; attempting to comfort our four children; making the phone calls to David’s and Margie’s siblings, my parents, et al, telling them of the terrible news—like so many others who deal with such a loss, all of this sent me to an awful place I had never before been and never want to return.

What’s more, the investigation into David’s death led us to discover that his killer had a decades-long criminal past (including multiple drug-related crimes) that was ignored—due to a lack of proper inquiry—by our local law enforcement when he was on trial for other charges in 2010. If the judge then had been aware of these past convictions, David’s killer almost certainly would have then faced serious jail time instead of mere probation. We will always wonder if David might still be alive if the district attorney’s office had done its job in 2010 and presented the evidence needed to put his killer behind bars. As is often the case in these tragedies, we sometimes wonder: would this have changed things? And: how do we prevent this from happening again?

Thus, after once again witnessing students slaughtered at the hands of a lone gunman bent on evil, I understand—though I typically strongly disagree with—those who want “action” from their government on “gun control.” I also understand those asking, “Why did this happen to us?”

As unpopular as this is likely to be, I’m going to say it anyway. The answer to “why” these dreadful things happen is nearly as old as creation itself: sin. As my late father-in-law would sometimes point out in his sermons, if you are hurting, if you are suffering, it is almost always due to one of two things: your sin or the sin of another. Just prior to the first murder in the history of humanity, God warned Cain,
If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.
The very next verse describes Cain murdering his brother Abel. Cain—like the rest of us—should have learned from the failure of his father and mother: walk with God and live in peace, or go your own way, do your own thing—i.e., rule your own world—and live in fear and suffering. Whether we like to admit it or not, operating out of our own selfish desires, each of us is capable of terrible things.

Most of us do not think ourselves capable of murder, but Jesus warned us that anger in our hearts makes us “subject to judgment.” On countless moral matters we have ignored the Word of God and gone our own way. This is the ultimate problem facing the world, and there’s only one solution.

This has always been the case. From very near the beginning of time, human beings have been killing one another, stealing from one another, enslaving one another, sexually abusing one another, and so on. God gave a perfect Law—upon which all other human laws should be based—to reveal to us what is right and what is wrong. Knowing that none of us is capable of perfectly keeping His Law, and thus were (and are) “guilty” of breaking all of it, God made a Way that we all might be “saved.”

Another unpopular sentiment: in the eyes of God, your sin and my sin make us just as guilty as a mass murderer. What’s more, because of our desire to elevate human “wisdom” and determine truth for ourselves while at the same time ignoring God’s wisdom and His eternal truths, we have become blind to what is sin, or “evil.”

For example, large swaths of our culture think that hunting for sport is morally unacceptable but killing an unborn child is okay. Additionally, many Americans—especially so-called “millennials”—believe the “right” to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm is more important than freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

In other words, and as most in their right-minds well know, many in our culture have stooped to calling what is good evil and what is evil good. To say that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman—in other words, agreeing with God on the matter—will quickly get one labeled a “bigot.” To oppose the radically perverse gender agenda of the modern left—e.g., simply pointing out the biological differences between a male and a female—can draw protests and threats of physical or financial harm.

Since Columbine (1999), using a very liberal definition of a “school shooting,” there have been 287 deaths as the result of someone wielding a gun at or near a school. In that same period, millions of children have been slaughtered in the womb. Countless children and adults alike have suffered—many to the point of death—as the result of divorce, “shacking up,” sexual promiscuity, and the like.

To stem the tide of evil, we must encourage a culture—in our personal lives, as well as our homes, businesses, schools, and government—that embraces the eternal truths of our Almighty God. We will never completely eliminate, or solve the problems of, evil in this world. We will not make any real progress—something that can be achieved—towards defeating evil in this world unless we recognize truly what is evil and what is to be done about it.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, 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 11, 2018

Liberals’ Lust for Their Own “Infinity Stones”

I recently took my children and one of their friends to see Avengers: Infinity War. (WARNING: movie spoilers ahead!) As a kid I was a fan of the superhero universe—Marvel and DC (remember these guys?)—and I’ve passed that interest on to my children. We’ve seen most of the Marvel and DC films. (Note to the studios: we will never attend the R-rated crap!) In spite of a wide array of characters with varying story lines, Marvel Studios has done a good job of weaving a common thread throughout multiple films in order to bring most of their characters together in Avengers: Infinity War.

This effort has proven to be wildly successful as Infinity War just had the biggest opening weekend of all-time. When we got to the point in the film where the plot—and the motives for the plot—were made clear, the thought occurred to me that those watching who are corrupted by a liberal worldview had to be conflicted, or at least confused.

Thanos—the chief antagonist of the film—is, of course, a murderous thug (who looks like the love-child of Barney the Dinosaur and King Kong). He has tremendous power and is bent on having things his way. And “his way” means killing off half of the universe. As the film makes clear, he is motivated to do such in order to bring “balance” to what he sees as an over-populated universe.

Sounding much like a member of the modern left and declaring that a planet’s—and the universe’s—resources are “finite,” Thanos sees himself not as a warrior or a conqueror, but as an agent of mercy—even a “savior.” He merely seeks “balance” so that we can all live happily ever after. So what if he has to murder billions in the process?

Several writers have already tackled the irony of a bunch of Hollywood leftists casting as a villain a Hulk-like being obsessed with fixing the “problem” of over-population. Whether championing the “right” to kill children in the womb, promoting the ever-imminent—but never realized—threat from “climate change,” and so on, the modern left has long used the myth of overpopulation to further their efforts at getting what they really want: power. If only they had the “Infinity Stones.”

The so-called “Infinity Stones” are the common thread skillfully woven throughout many of the previous Marvel films. There are six of these stones, with each giving its owner a unique and tremendous power. As explained in Guardians of the Galaxy, “[B]efore the universe first began, there were six singularities. These six singularities were then condensed into concentrated ingots. Whoever controls all six stones and wields them using the Infinity Gauntlet has the power to reshape reality.”

In other words, if one possesses all of the stones—Thanos’ goal in Infinity War—then one gains “omnipotence and omniscience.” At the end of Infinity War Thanos has all of the stones. He merely snaps his fingers and his plan for population control takes effect. Viewers watch as close to half of the Avengers heroes—along with half of the rest of humanity—are dissolved into ash (think of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt).

Whether big government liberalism, socialism, communism, and the like, modern leftists have long lusted for the power to “reshape” the world into their perverse version of “reality,” and a mere snap of their fingers would suit them just fine. We have seen a taste of this in the real world. The electoral process has often proven too slow or unreliable for today’s liberals, thus the judicial or executive equivalent of a finger snap has often given American liberals exactly what they wanted.

Everything from abortion to same-sex “marriage,” immigration policy (DACA), environmental policy (e.g., Obama’s war on coal, war on oil, etc.—thanks to his “pen and phone”), perverse gender edicts, dangerous military edicts (based on an ignorant and perverse view of gender), and the like, have been achieved via some political “snap of a finger.” Whatever the excuse—overpopulation, global warming, sexual “rights,” gun control, health care, “hate” speech, “income inequality,” and so on—liberals look for most any opportunity to gain the power necessary to usher in “utopia.” If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Of course, the real-world equivalent of the Infinity Stones is totalitarianism, and far too many of today’s American left are far too comfortable with an all-powerful state led by those who are “wise in their own eyes” and devoted to the “theology of self.” Of course, those liberals seeking to win an election in the U.S. will never (yet) admit this, but if you watch and listen closely enough, you will hear the little totalitarians reveal themselves. Leftist politicians, pundits, and sheeple alike have given strong clues that oftentimes, they would just rather not bother with democracy, much less our Constitution. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

This is particularly true when devoted leftists in the media and on campuses feel threatened by information and ideas (read: the truth)—from the likes of the “thought outlaws” who operate in the “Intellectual Dark Web”—that they don’t like. It has become commonplace for these agitprop provocateurs of the American left to encourage and actually employ violence, threaten careers, and otherwise advocate for censorship when it comes to anything that threatens the tenets of modern liberalism. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Whether to silence man-made climate change skeptics or pro-lifers, punish Christians, grab guns, or even reverse a presidential election, democrat politicians—where they still have power in the U.S.—have displayed a stunning penchant for totalitarianism. Remember when a cadre of democrat Attorneys General—including the now infamous Eric Schneiderman—stood with Al Gore and threatened—via “investigations”—“climate skeptics?”

Remember when California passed a law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion? (The case challenging this “law” was just heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.) In addition, California wants to outlaw leaving the homosexual lifestyle (via the infamous “You Must Stay Gay” bill) and thus criminalize the Bible. So that their attempts at implementing their totalitarian dreams is much easier, liberals want to criminalize guns, thus the 2nd Amendment has got to go. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Ironically, few things make a modern liberal squeal louder than the notion that there is an Absolute Power to which we all will eventually have to give an account. Almost certainly—if possible—they would snap their fingers and make Him disappear as well. Thank God there’s no such thing as Infinity Stones.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America