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:

Monday, September 17, 2018

May the Farce be With You: Han Solo Preaches Climate Doom

And you thought the Death Star was dangerous. Speaking at the Global Climate Action Summit recently, a frothy and furry Harrison Ford—resembling Chewbacca more than Han Solo—growled and cussed at a like-minded gathering of the anthropogenic climate change faithful. Like a fiery guru pitching a worn out self-help scam, Ford reminded his congregation of something we’ve all heard countless times before: because of so-called man-made climate change, the “future of humanity is at stake!”

No doubt implying that America needs to elect more democrats, Ford passionately implored the crowd to “stop giving power to people who don’t believe in science.” I agree! Anyone who can’t tell the American public what is the definition of a male and a female, or denies the unmistakable—but, for liberals, “inconvenient”—science of life in the womb has no business holding elected office.

Though their meteorologists often get the 5-day forecast wrong, the same fools who tell us that women are just as good in combat as men want us to take their 100-year climate forecasts as the gospel truth, because, you know, “SCIENCE!” With the same ignorant passion of Harrison Ford, for decades now the dogmatic adherents of “the [not-so] new religion of First World urban elites” have claimed that the burning of fossil fuels is destroying the planet.

Blind to what fuels their private jets and what has fueled the building of our comfortable modern world, including carbon fiber bicycles, air conditioned Starbucks, polyester clothes, smart-phones, laptops, plastic protest signs, “Coexist” bumper stickers, and everything else that makes a liberal lifestyle complete, hypocritical leftists scream that if we don’t get off of fossil fuels, the world will burn. And “we are sh*t out of time” according to Harrison Ford.

Actually, San Francisco—where the Global Climate Action Summit was held this year—has had to make plenty of time for sh*t. In order to navigate properly one of the most “progressive” cities in the world, where taking care of the environment is supposedly sacrosanct, one must consult a “poop map.” Who knew that poop in the streets was “progressive?”

Yes, the world is filled with crap-holes, but they shouldn’t exist in the U.S.—at least not literally. Yet San Francisco has turned into a literal cesspool, and according to Steven Greenhut, everyone there is noticing.
“Trash bags full of approximately 20 pounds of human poop were left on the sidewalk over the weekend in downtown San Francisco,” the Fresno Bee reported on Wednesday. “It’s the latest — and perhaps most alarming — sign of the increased filthiness of one of the most popular cities in the United States.” Those smelly, possibly leaking bags were left in the downscale Tenderloin, but large swaths of upscale areas now resemble an outdoor sewer with human feces, open-air drug use, and other signs of the breakdown of civic order.

…Even the grounds around the state Capitol in Sacramento aren’t immune. In fairness, I’ve seen similar situations throughout the country. But in San Francisco the disorder isn’t confined to alleys and bushes. The encampments are in plain view and spreading. The panhandlers can be frighteningly aggressive.

An NBC Bay Area investigation from February “reveals a dangerous concoction of drug needles, garbage, and feces lining the streets of downtown San Francisco. The Investigative Unit surveyed more than 150 blocks, including some of the city’s top tourist destinations, and discovered conditions that are now being compared to some of the worst slums in the world.” In some cases, the situation may be worse than in the Third World because in those countries the filth and needles tend to be confined to certain neighborhoods, whereas in San Francisco the problem is everywhere.
In other words, San Francisco can’t even figure out how to keep human feces from their streets, yet we’re supposed to trust such politicians when it comes to something as magnificently complex as the global climate. Maybe they should put their efforts towards building a better pooper-scooper. Perhaps they could get Bill Nye the “science” guy working on it.

Now that we’ve had a significant hurricane hit the U.S. Coast, liberals want everyone to remember that all of the devastation that results from Hurricane Florence is the fault of man-made climate change deniers—especially President Trump. Just as Florence was bearing down on the Carolina coast, The Washington Post pointed the finger at the President:
Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.
Dan Rather—you know, the long-time “impartial” evening news anchor at CBS—said that future generations “will damn” those “complicit” in ignoring the earth’s pleas “for a restoration to health.” Of course, most liberals “will damn” President Trump no matter what.

CNN was happy to join the “damn Trump because of the hurricane” chorus. On this past Thursday, after stating that he agreed with The Post that Trump was “complicit” in the latest hurricane, CNN political analyst John Avlon declared, “This isn’t rocket science, it is climate science.” Actually John, it’s just weather, but “never let a crisis go to waste,” right?

To bolster his case, Avlon did what media liberals so often do: he lied. Avlon presented his paltry audience with a graphic that claimed that there’s been a 40% increase in severe storms since 1950. Via Twitter, Ryan Maue provided a graphic that revealed the truth. As Roger Pielke put it,
For many years, those seeking to justify carbon restrictions argued that hurricanes had become more common and intense. That hasn’t happened. Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes… Prior to Harvey, which made landfall as a Category 4 storm, the U.S. had gone a remarkable 12 years without being hit by a hurricane of Category 3 strength or stronger. Since 1970 the U.S. has only seen four hurricanes of Category 4 or 5 strength. In the previous 47 years, the country was struck by 14 such storms.
In 2016, even The New York Times was whining about the lack of hurricanes, though they did assure us that hurricanes will return, and stronger than ever. We’ve seen this song and dance too many times now. The script is too predictable. After this storm passes, Trump will be blamed for anything that goes wrong in the recovery, and then it’s on to the next natural disaster.

Those peddling man-made global warming are responsible for some of the biggest scandals in science, which has helped to prop up one of the greatest scientific frauds of all time. About the only thing more scandalous, more fraudulent would be to give political power to those who continue to preach or buy into to this scientific propaganda. 

(See the column at American Thinker.)

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

Sunday, September 16, 2018

GOP: Do Your Job and CONFIRM KAVANAUGH!

Again we see one of the big reasons why Donald Trump was elected U.S. President: unlike so many in the GOP, he fights. So we now know the name of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser: Christine Blasey Ford. She's a democrat-donating Bernie Sanders supporter who teaches clinical psychology at Palo Alto University in California.

Even more telling, the lawyer she's hired is D.C. swamp-dweller Debra Katz. As Townhall notes,
Katz...has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as "miscreants" who are worse than deplorables...readers should remember that Katz treated Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against President Bill Clinton very differently in the 1990s...Katz dismissed Jones' assertions on March 30th,1998 on CNN's "Talkback Live" saying that, "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."
Katz continued to argue throughout the 90s that because Jones could not show that the harassment was "severe and pervasive," she did not have a case. In 1998, Katz told the media that, "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.’
But, of course, not in this case. This is because, as I noted on Twitter, Judge Kavanaugh is a good man, an excellent judge, and a reliable conservative, and liberals hate him for it all. These accusations by Ford are nothing but last ditch Clarence Thomas-like theater that reeks of political desperation. As Erick Erickson puts it,
Here we have one Bernie Sanders supporter who waited about 30 years before telling anyone and did so during a therapy session, which itself raises questions about whether this is real or a therapist contrived "recovered memory." At the time, Brett Kavanaugh was on the United States Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh's accuser did nothing publicly until 2018, thirty-five years after the accusation.

The accusation itself is that Kavanaugh, then a teenager, tried to force himself on to her at a party while drunk. Kavanaugh and his accused friend both vehemently deny the accusation. While I suspect the accuser will bring forward some friends who claim she told them at the time, because that is just how convenient this story is, thus far none have come forward.

What we do have, however, are 65 women who have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school who have vouched for his character since high school. We have a herd of reporters who accused the GOP of clearly knowing about the accusation because they could not conceive of 65 women working through the night to defend their friend's character. That not only speaks to the poor character of the reporters, but also to the fact that most political reporters in DC are already pre-disposed to oppose Kavanaugh.
We have dozens of female colleagues who have come forward to defend Brett Kavanaugh's character. We have moms of basketball players and those same female players defending him.

We have no pattern of conduct. We have no multiple accusers. We have no evidence. We have one Bernie Sanders donor against close to 100 women and girls who say this is outside the character of Brett Kavanaugh.

If the GOP decides to entertain this, we will start seeing this pattern repeatedly where one accusation from decades ago is given more weight than a lifetime of work and character witnesses that span a nominee's lifetime. Democrats want to weaponize the #MeToo movement to sabotage Brett Kavanaugh. The irony is that they are doing it to protect an abortion industry that preys mostly on innocent girls in the womb.
It seems that retiring GOP Senator Jeff Flake has decided to "entertain this." After Ford's identity became known today, Senator Flake said, "We said before that these allegations were anonymous and uncorroborated. That is no longer true." He then went on to say, "We can't vote until we hear more." As I noted in a Tweet to Arizona's new "maverick": What "corroboration?! There's no "corroboration" with Kavanaugh's accuser. It's still just her word. The only thing different is that we now know her name.

Is this Flake's "NeverTrump" hatred spewing forth? John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks so:
Kavanaugh unequivocally denies Ford’s allegation, and the only witness to the event (per Ford), Mark Judge, says “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” I think Ms. Ford is pretty obviously lying (don’t get me started on the friendly “lie detector test” that the Washington Post says she passed), or, on the most charitable explanation, possibly has Brett Kavanaugh confused with someone else. 
In any event, the idea that a 30 to 40 year old story of this sort–He tried to kiss me! He lay on top of me!–that has never been heard before, can derail the nomination of a man who by all accounts, including those of political adversaries, is of the most sterling possible character, is ridiculous. 
Despite the feebleness of Ford’s complaint, it is easy to understand why the Democrats are clinging to it like a life raft. But what could possibly prompt Jeff Flake, who ran for office and was elected as a Republican, to join in their attempt to block one of the most superbly qualified jurists ever appointed to the Court? There is only one answer: his insane hatred for President Trump.
As any sound-minded conservative, or even devoted republican, should well know: The democrats and their stooges in the media are going to seek to destroy WHOMEVER is a conservative nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who would've gladly cast their vote for Kavanaugh last week should also note, THIS is the best they can do with Kavanaugh: uncorroborated accusations from HIGH SCHOOL!

I warned the GOP during the Gorsuch hearings, "Gird Your Loins and be ready for Battle over the Supreme Court." Now is the time for republicans to do what they were elected to do! The wall's not being built, Obamacare's not been repealed. Among other things, republicans were elected to nominate and approve judges like Kavanaugh! Take your cue from President Trump and FIGHT! Now do your job GOP and seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court!

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

Friday, September 14, 2018

Kavanaugh and Pence Prove: Liberals Don’t Care About Character

By all accounts, Brett Kavanaugh is not only an excellent jurist, but also a good man. According to Msgr. John Enzler, CEO and president of Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.,
This is the guy next door, this is what he's like. He’s not like some intellectual powerhouse you’d never talk to. This is a guy who’s very friendly, very outgoing, very nice, lot of laughter, big smile, wonderful father, wonderful husband, man of faith, lives his faith, goes to church every week.
When introduced as President Trump’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy, Judge Kavanaugh—a former altar boy—spoke adoringly of his parents, wife, and two daughters. “I thank God every day for my family,” he told the audience gathered at the White House. He also spoke of his commitment to serve others through his D.C. Catholic Church.

From all indications, Brett Kavanaugh loves his wife, loves his children, loves his parents, loves his fellow man, and, most importantly of all, loves his Lord. As is the case with all of those who possess such character, Kavanaugh’s love is not revealed only through words. Those who know him well confirm that he lives out his faith. In other words, through his deeds Mr. Kavanaugh is known and admired. And liberals just don’t care.

In spite of all that we’ve heard about President Trump’s character—or lack thereof—as I noted last year, there’s nothing in President Trump’s personal past that runs afoul of the perverse “standards” of modern liberalism. As the Kavanaugh hearings again remind us, for modern liberals, it’s never really about the character of the individual. Virtually all that matters is furthering the liberal agenda.

As Ron Ross at American Spectator recently pointed out, President Trump’s real crime—seemingly now “the most unforgivable hate crime”—is “obstruction of liberalism.” No doubt liberals fear that Brett Kavanaugh is part of the same “criminal” cabal. What’s more, given that the office of U.S. President is decided every four years, and Supreme Court judges receive lifetime appointments, Justice Kavanaugh—and those in the judiciary who are like minded—are on liberals’ “most wanted” list.

Hence the absurd and clownish display we witnessed last week when Mr. Kavanaugh went before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. After the opening day hearings, David French well summed up the sad spectacle:
[F]rom the top down, from senators to protesters to online trolls, the Democrats offered a preview of how they’d react to any Republican nominee, and it was a shining example of how and why conservatives don’t believe for one moment that Donald Trump is the sole source of American dysfunction.
In other words, it was as if Kramer and Newman had taken over the hearings. After enduring a couple of days of ugly liberal antics, David Catron soundly piled on:
During the first two days of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated why their party lost control of Congress, and that they still can’t be trusted with a majority in either house. In addition to interrupting the proceedings countless times on hopelessly frivolous grounds and engaging in outrageous demagoguery, they openly encouraged demonstrators to disrupt the hearings with such disgusting behavior that Judge Kavanaugh’s wife was forced to lead his children out of the room on the first day. These are the very Democrats, remember, who routinely lecture President Trump on matters of decorum.
As the caption above Catron’s piece notes, “Kavanaugh hearings reveal why their symbol is the jackass.” Indeed! A braying looney jackass:

 

Again, things will only get worse if President Trump has the opportunity to replace Ruth Ginsburg or one of her constitutionally-ignorant left-wing colleagues. Along with the rise of fake news and fake Christianity, lovers of the truth have had to contend with fake law. Much of what is precious to modern liberals has become entrenched in U.S. law, not because of constitutionally legislative efforts, but through a rogue unconstitutional judiciary.

Whether abortion, same-sex “marriage,” immigration, climate change, speech, property rights, and so on, left-wing jurists on the highest courts in our land have conducted themselves, not as “umpires”—as Judge Kavanaugh put it—but as “super legislators.” Because the U.S. federal courts have been a reliable resource for liberal causes and left-wing law, anything or anyone—no matter their character—seen as a threat to the left’s hold on the courts must be “taken out.”

Because liberals have made a god of government, almost any politician or judge—no matter their character—with their sights set on Washington D.C. must be ready to deal with the vile, crazy left. In their lust to be rid of Trump, many liberals have forgotten how much they hate Mike Pence. This past July, Frank Brunni of The New York Times reminded them:
There are problems with impeaching Donald Trump. A big one is the holy terror waiting in the wings.

That would be Mike Pence, who mirrors the boss more than you realize. He’s also self-infatuated. Also a bigot. Also a liar. Also cruel.

To that brimming potpourri he adds two ingredients that Trump doesn’t genuinely possess: the conviction that he’s on a mission from God and a determination to mold the entire nation in the shape of his own faith, a regressive, repressive version of Christianity. Trade Trump for Pence and you go from kleptocracy to theocracy.
Or, to put it another way, because he follows a version of the “Billy Graham rule,” the left sees Mike Pence as part of the “American Taliban.” Last year, The Atlantic reported on “How Mike Pence’s Marriage Became Fodder for the Culture Wars.” The author references a 2002 The Hill piece:
The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”

The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.
Mike Pence puts his family and his marriage ahead of politics, and the left thinks this is lunacy. As the Apostle Paul told Titus, “to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”

A defiled heart and mind distorts everything. The left hates Trump supposedly because he’s vile, vulgar, “trashy,” undignified, un-presidential, piggish. Mike Pence and Brett Kavanaugh can be accused of nothing similar, and the left hates them also. For those corrupted by a liberal worldview, it’s never really about character, it’s always about politics…and sex. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Sunday, September 9, 2018

The Church, Sexual Immorality, and Fake Christianity

Pleased with the efforts of his demonic protégé, Screwtape nevertheless cautioned Wormwood not to waken his waffling churchgoing “patient” to “a sense of his real position.” In chapter XII of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, Screwtape further warns Wormwood that his patient “must not be allowed to suspect that he is now, however slowly, heading right away from the sun on a line which will carry him into the cold and dark of utmost space.”

Screwtape goes on to contend that the man’s church attendance could even be used as an advantage in their demonic schemes. He explains,
As long as he retains externally the habits of a Christian he can still be made to think of himself as one who has adopted a few new friends and amusements but whose spiritual state is much the same as it was six weeks ago [before he became a Christian]. And while he thinks that, we do not have to contend with the explicit repentance of a definite, fully recognized, sin, but only with his vague, though uneasy, feeling that he hasn’t been doing very well lately.
After all, Screwtape concludes,
It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing…Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
Fewer and fewer Americans these days seem willing “to contend with the explicit repentance of a definite, fully recognized, sin.” Of course, to a great extent, this is because fewer and fewer Americans are able to recognize what is sin—or, many Americans are simply becoming comfortable with their sin and are eagerly strolling along the “gentle slope” to hell.

In a foolish desire to be “relevant” or “tolerant,” churches across the world—especially mainline Protestant churches and the Catholic Church—have abandoned long-heeded truths for heresy. This is especially the case when it comes to matters in the sexual realm.

At this point in the moral wars, if you are a Christian, you almost certainly should well know where your church stands on the issues of homosexuality, same-sex “marriage,” and any other manifestation of sexual immorality. If your church’s position on such grave matters is unclear, you should be asking yourself and your church leadership why this is the case.

If your church is refusing to confront these grave matters bravely and truthfully, you should seek to change that. If they refuse, you should find another body of fellowship. Likewise, if you are a lover of the truth, any church you’ve attended that has already gone the way of the world on homosexuality, marriage, and the like should now be your former church.

In other words, there is a war raging within the church, and it is long past time to choose sides and get in the fight. Decades of fake Christians peddling fake Christianity—along with lazy, ignorant, lukewarm, and sometimes hypocritical congregations—have allowed the moral lines for what was and was not sin in the sexual realm to be blurred or altogether redrawn.

As a result, the battles over sex and sexuality in our culture have largely been lost. A wide array of sexually immoral behaviors is now deemed acceptable by significant portions of our culture. At least sixty percent of Americans view same-sex “marriage,” homosexuality, and fornication (sex outside of marriage) as morally acceptable. Our courts, corporations, schools, legislatures, and the like have taken notice. Most every significant institution in the U.S. now widely embraces evil. The church doesn’t seem far behind.

It should come as little surprise that so many who call themselves Christians want to go the way of the world on sexual matters. This is especially true of those under 30. Their teachers, professors, bosses, TV shows, movies, et al fully embrace the perverse LGBT agenda, so why shouldn’t their church? Some church leaders—those unequipped, misled, or with a corporate (as opposed to a biblical) mindset who hope that surrender on sex will grow their numbers—have agreed.

The sexual morality presented by Christianity stands in stark contrast to the sexual immorality proffered by the perverse LGBT agenda. In spite of the clear and unmistakable message of Scripture and centuries of church teachings on sex, family, and marriage, there is a growing movement among Christians to ignore or flat out deny what God has long said on these grave matters. As the body of Christ is supposed to be the first and last line of defense with such spiritual darkness, this capitulation has led to increased battle grounds in this war.

As many of us well know, these battles are all around us: in bakeries, flower shops, adoption agencies, track meets, libraries, the military, schools (see here for a shocking list of the perversions occurring in k-12 government schools), and yes, tragically, even in the church (Catholic, Protestant, and “born-again” former Presidents who teach Sunday school). Thus, whether we desire it or not, whether we are engaged or not, almost every single American has already been touched by this war.

Though many of us are now witnessing things we formerly thought sheer nonsense or impossible—and horrific—as with most things in the human condition, what we Christians are facing today in the sexual realm is not as new as it may seem. The scourge of sexual immorality that is so pervasive in the “City of Man” has long plagued God’s people.

Since very near the beginning of time human beings have sought to shed the tenets of our Creator and go our own way. This is especially true when it comes to our sexuality. Much of the history of ancient Israel, as described by the Old Testament, included the struggle of the Jewish people with idolatry, false gods, and sexual immorality. Whether Baal, Ashtoreth, Molech, or any other such demons, the people of God were often led into obscene sexual activities, along with other vile wickedness such as human—including infant—sacrifice (which some of today’s liberals defend).

In spite of the widespread embrace of the left’s lies on sex, as was the case with Israel, a remnant of truth-tellers will remain. The size of that remnant will, to a great extent, be determined by the willingness of the church to fight for the truth. Those who’ve made a god of sex already own the Democrat Party, Hollywood, social media, the drive-by media, the government schools, and so on. We can’t afford to give away any more ground, certainly not within the church.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Saturday, September 1, 2018

♪If You Believe We Put a Man on the Moon♪…Don’t Go See First Man

When it comes to the American flag on the moon, Hollywood takes a knee. With its soon-to-be released film, First Man, it seems Universal Pictures doesn’t want the world to remember that it was Americans who first landed on the moon. On the contrary, Hollywood again reminds us why Trump was elected and why liberals should never be in any position of power. Remember such come this November.

The absurdity of a film about the first manned mission to the moon—an exclusively American accomplishment—that doesn’t show the moment when Neil Armstrong planted the U.S. flag on the moon makes me wonder: would such a move by Universal and the producers and directors of First Man have taken place had Donald Trump not been elected President of the United States? If this is the case, President Trump is not only living inside the heads of the Hollywood elite, he’s built a HUUUGE skyscraper there and has taken up permanent residence in the top floor penthouse.

Or perhaps Hollywood—like Google—wants to appease the Chinese. As Chinese money pours into Hollywood, its influence over what is produced in the American entertainment industry is growing. Canadian actor Ryan Gosling—who plays Armstrong in First Man—describes the first moon landing as a “human achievement” that “transcended countries and borders.” Almost certainly the Chinese agree.

Communists have a long history of attempting to rewrite history in order to further their agenda. The U.S. entertainment industry is a powerful tool in such propaganda efforts. As John Hinderaker of Powerline put it,
Hollywood’s lies are forever. As time goes by, and fewer people remember the truthful version of events, their capacity to deceive probably grows rather than diminishing. “First Man” represents a more subtle deceit than “JFK” or “Truth,” but it is deceit nonetheless.
Regardless of whether this was Hollywood again displaying its ugly Trump Derangement Syndrome, or Chinese appeasement, or whether it was just the latest lame attempt by the left to rewrite history and put America and Americans “in our place,” this was a truly stupid act. Take note, kids, these hate-filled political syndromes can make you do dumb things.

Did the left really think that such an omission would go unnoticed or be ignored? Whether by commission (kneeling during the National Anthem), or omission (editing out the American flag), the left continues to dishonor and disrespect this nation. Do they really think such deceit—both the anthem protests in the NFL and the flag omission by Universal are rooted in lies—is going to win over the American electorate?

I know well the truth of the moon missions, what went into placing American men on the moon, and the importance of such achievements in the telling of America’s history. One of the chapters in The Miracle and Magnificence of America details how scientific, political, and flight pioneers in the United States turned science fiction into science fact. Prior to the amazing Apollo missions, Americans spent decades pioneering the science, technology, and grit necessary to placing men in space and on the moon.

Called “The father of the Space Age,” Robert Goddard was the first scientist to give serious scientific treatment to the idea that space travel was possible. U.S. newspapers widely reported on Goddard’s work, and for the first time, Americans began to believe that men really could travel to the moon.

Goddard—an American physicist, engineer, and inventor—was already famous worldwide for his contributions to rocketry. In 1920, less than two decades after the Wright brothers astounded the world by flying for 12 seconds at an altitude of 10 feet, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard’s groundbreaking paper, “A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes.”

Prior to 1920, Goddard was successfully building rockets, rocket engines, and making rocket fuel. A staunch patriot, and with the goal of producing rockets that would assist in the war effort, in 1917 Goddard went to work for the U.S. Army. He was able to develop rockets with launchers that could be fired from trenches. He also developed hand-held launchers similar to what would later be known as the bazooka.

Goddard was the first to build a rocket engine that used liquid fuel. Fifteen years later the Nazis would use the same type of engine in their V-2 rocket weapons. In 1935 Goddard became the first to launch a liquid-fueled rocket faster than the speed of sound. In addition to fuels and engines, in his pursuit of getting rockets into space, Goddard also invented many of the components necessary for space travel. Thus, again, America was leading the world into new frontiers. Prior to Goddard, the rocket was simply a toy, as historian Frank H. Winter put it, a small “pasteboard amusement device. Now, astonishingly and suddenly, it was transformed into a revolutionary way to penetrate space.”

In the spring of 1945, after his inspection of a German V-2 rocket, Goddard was convinced that the Nazis had stolen his work. In 1963, Wernher von Braun admitted that Goddard’s rockets “... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.” He also concluded that “Goddard's experiments in liquid fuel saved us years of work, and enabled us to perfect the V-2 years before it would have been possible.”

By 1946, V-2s were being launched from American soil. As a result of these efforts, the United States achieved many of the world’s firsts in space travel. On October 24, 1946, a 35-mm motion picture camera placed aboard a V-2 took the first ever photo from space. It was a simple and quite grainy black-and-white image of a small portion of the earth.

View of Earth from a camera on V-2 #13, launched October 24, 1946. (White Sands Missile Range/Applied Physics Laboratory
The U.S. was the first to put animals into space. On February 20, 1947, in order to study radiation exposure at high altitudes, fruit flies were launched aboard a V-2 and reached an altitude of 68 miles, just over the “Karman line,” the imaginary line where the earth’s atmosphere meets outer space. On June 14, 1949, the U.S. put the first mammal in space. Also, multiple V-2 rockets flew “experiment packages” in the nose cones. Such packages performed various measurements in the upper regions of the earth’s atmosphere as well as in the lower regions of space.

Given the limited supply and the expense of the relatively large V-2, U.S. rocket scientists developed the sleeker and much less expensive Aerobee rocket. The Aerobee was a two-stage rocket. It greatly reduced the cost of rocket research missions.

As the U.S. was sending more and more rockets and live animals into space, the idea of manned space flight drew closer and closer to a reality. In addition to the effects of high altitudes and low gravity on the human body, the impact of extremely high speed was another necessary and significant area of research by rocket scientists.

The earliest significant speed challenge for man and machine was the sound barrier. On October 14, 1947, in the rocket-powered Bell Aircraft X-1, at an altitude of about 45,000 feet, traveling at Mach 1.07, Air Force test pilot Chuck Yeager became the first human to travel faster than the speed of sound. Supersonic flight soon became a regular occurrence. By the 1950s, Edwards Air Force Base was the destination for pilots thought to have “the right stuff.”

Edwards Air Force Base, along with the United States Naval Test Pilot School in Patuxent River, Maryland, soon became the home of legendary American pilots. “On their way to the stars, the first generation of Americans who would fly into space passed first through Edwards or Pax River.”

Nevertheless, with the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik (Russian for “satellite”) 1, on October 4, 1957, the Russians, not the Americans, ushered in the space age. When Sputnik 2, with the dog Laika aboard, was launched on November 3, 1957, Americans were demanding answers. A media riot ensued. Legendary science editor John Campbell declared, “There is nothing like a good, hard kick in the pants to wake up somebody who’s going to sleep on the job.”

In order to assure Americans that there had been a significant American effort to get into space, four days after the launch of Sputnik 2, President Eisenhower began a series of televised speeches from the Oval Office on the subject of “Science and National Security.”

On July 29, 1955, White House press secretary, James C. Hagerty, announced official U.S. plans for launching satellites into space. By September of that year, the U.S. Navy’s Vanguard satellite program became the official satellite program of the United States. Feeling pressure as the result of the successful launch of Sputnik, on December 6, 1957, Vanguard TV3 was the first attempt by the U.S. to put a satellite into space. The picture below reveals the sad result of the launch:


With millions of Americans anxiously watching on TV, two seconds after launch, and a mere four feet in the air, Vanguard TV3 lost thrust, fell back to the earth, and exploded. It was a sweeping humiliation for the U.S. Newspapers ran headlines using words like “Flopnik,” “Kaputnik,” “Stayputnik,” and “Dudnik” to describe the launch failure. Vanguard soon became a byword for failure.

However, only a few weeks later, on January 31, 1958, America joined the Soviets in space. Launched aboard the Juno I rocket, the Explorer 1 was the first satellite of the United States. 1958 saw multiple efforts by both the Soviets and the Americans to put additional satellites into orbit. There were successes and failures on both sides.

With the Soviets having exploded their first thermonuclear bomb in 1953, when Sputnik 1 was launched into space, military leaders in America rightly feared the idea that the Russians now had a significant first-strike nuclear advantage. Thus, the space race was also quite literally a “rocket race.” Though the U.S. had been working on an intercontinental ballistic missile since just after the end of WWII, the first successful launch of an American ICBM, the Atlas, did not occur until November 28, 1958, more than a year after the first successful launch of the Russian R-7.

However, the Soviets failed to build on their lead in ICBM technology, and by the early 1960s the United States took and maintained an advantage in strategic missile technology. The U.S. missile advantage was due in part to the creation of NASA. On July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act. It would be NASA that would take America to the moon.

In addition to improving American rocket technology, by 1961 NASA planners had firmly set their resolve on the goal of placing a man on the moon. On May 5, 1961, aboard the space capsule Freedom 7, Alan Shepard became the first American to travel into space. About three weeks later on May 25, President Kennedy announced the goal of a lunar landing by the end of the decade. Toward the end of 1961, the Soviets announced the moon as a target as well.

The failing health of the leader of the Soviet space program, the brilliant Sergei Korolev, and his eventual untimely death in 1966, kept the Russians behind the Americans in the race to the moon. On July 20, 1969, American Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon. About 19 minutes after Armstrong first set foot on the Moon, fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin joined him.

Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 all sent American men to the surface of the Moon. Twelve men, all Americans, have walked on the surface of the moon. Chronologically, they are Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt.

I thought the moon missions so unique and important in American history that I included a photo of an Apollo astronaut on the surface of the moon on the cover of The Miracle and Magnificence of America. And not just any photo, but the photo of Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott saluting the American flag at the Hadley-Apennine landing site on July 30, 1971. The story of men walking on the moon is a uniquely American achievement. History plainly reveals this, and no amount of Hollywood editing is going to change that.

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

Sunday, August 26, 2018

Liberals Long Ago Abandoned the Idea that “Truth is Truth”

At the end of 2016—and as they themselves declared, much in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States—Oxford Dictionaries named “post-truth” as its 2016 “word of the year.” In other words, because Donald Trump had ascended to the White House, the largest university press in the world decided that much of the American electorate had simply abandoned the truth. Like-minded liberals the world over have decided that we who elected Mr. Trump must be taught a lesson.

Such efforts demonstrate a particularly rich hypocrisy and blind ignorance of their own condition, for in their lust to rule their own world, modern liberals long ago decided to cast aside the fundamental axioms that comprise absolute truth. For such liberals, the age-old quest for “what is truth” has been abandoned or become a foolish and fruitless exercise where “relativism” rules the day.

This is particularly true for liberals in politics, media, and academia—i.e., those leading the charge in trying to reverse the results of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. As Ravi Zacharias noted is his column addressing Oxford’s “post-truth” conclusions,
These two bastions of values, the academy and the media—where relativism flows in their veins—have become the town criers of this new word. Castigating the politicians, they untruthfully predicted the destination of the untruthful. Excoriating an electorate gone amuck, they wondered how people could be duped into a lie. Having themselves swallowed a camel, they were now straining at a gnat. They are the primary carriers of manipulation with words and repeating distortions often enough to make them into truths. They are the origin of this reality of caring not for truth but for impact and for the manipulation of all thinking. Their victory is pyrrhic.
Knowing well that those after his boss “are the primary carriers of manipulation with words and repeating distortions often enough to make them into truths,” Rudy Giuliani recently told NBC’s Chuck Todd,
…I am not going to be rushed into having him testify so that he gets trapped into perjury. And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he’s going to tell the truth and he shouldn’t worry, well that’s so silly because it’s somebody’s version of the truth. Not the truth.
After this statement, shaking his head, Mr. Todd laughingly concluded that “Truth is truth.” Mr. Giuliani should have asked, “Whose Truth, Chuck?” Nevertheless, and again, understanding well who he’s dealing with, Mr. Giuliani regrettably declared that “Truth isn’t truth.” Knowing they had a meme with which they could skewer President Trump and his supporters, gleeful liberals across the U.S. seized upon Giuliani’s three words and enthusiastically engaged in scurrilous scoffing and merciless mocking. In one of the greatest acts of hypocrisy in human history, it was as if in unison they were declaring, “See, we told you dupes that these guys were fools and liars!”

In spite of their recent crowing about “the truth,” few things in the universe are as blind or ambivalent as the truth detectors employed by today’s left. In other words, modern liberalism is notoriously bankrupt and decidedly lost when it comes to producing or discerning the truth.

If there is anything, there is truth. As Thomas Aquinas put it,
The existence of truth is self-evident. For whoever denies the existence of truth grants that truth does not exist: and, if truth does not exist, then the proposition ‘Truth does not exist’ is true: and if there is anything true, there must be truth.
Such a conclusion is in direct contradiction with modern liberalism. John Dewey, a humanist and one of the founding thinkers behind modern liberalism, put it this way,
There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.
In other words, to admit that there is “immutable truth” is to admit that God exists. Since many want nothing to do with His moral law—especially on matters in the sexual realm—then there can be no truth. Thus, one could say that efforts of modern liberalism could be succinctly summed up as a “war on the truth.”

The consequences of such selfish pursuits have been tragically profound. Virtually every institution that truth-deprived modern liberalism has infected has been corrupted. Whether politics, education, entertainment, corporations, the church, or the family, every significant institution upon which any sound society rests becomes vulnerable to all sorts of nonsense, chaos, and evil once the godless relativism that permeates modern liberalism takes hold.

As we have so often heard, “the truth will set us free.” Sadly, many today have twisted this to mean that “I get to make my own truth so I’m free to do as I please.” No. As Dr. Zacharias reminds us, “True freedom is not the liberty to do as we please; rather, it is to do as we ought. For that we need the truth.”

Just prior to His final act on earth, at one of the most pivotal points in human history, Jesus was asked by Pilate (John 18:37): “What is truth?” Everything precious in the universe hinges on how that question is answered. If we want an honest answer, must look to the One who made the universe and who told us, “I am the truth.”

One of my graduate school mathematics texts—Roads to Geometry—begins with this declaration: “The truth of these axioms [the presuppositions upon which the mathematics is rightfully developed] is not at issue—just the readers’ willingness to accept them as true.” The Bible could end with the same.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, August 20, 2018

The Price of Porn: It’s Probably Higher than You Think

A little over a week ago, someone attempted to blackmail me. On August 12, I received this message in an e-mail:
Hope you do not really mind my english language sentence structure, because i'm from Germany. I infected your system with a trojan and now have all of your private data out of your operating system.

It previously was set up on an adult page then you have selected the video and clicked on it, my program instantly got into your os.

And then, your cam documented you soloing, also i caught a footage that you've seen.

Just after a little while this also pulled out your device contacts. If you ever wish me to clear off your everything i have got - transfer me 450 dollars in bitcoin it is a cryptocurrency. [An account address was given.] 
At this moment you will have 24 hours. to make a decision The minute i will receive the deal i'll get rid of this footage and every little thing entirely. Otherwise, you should remember that your video is going to be submitted to all your contacts.
Though it wasn’t the case in my instance, to heighten the level of threat, sometimes these e-mail scams even contain passwords used by the recipient. This is a new type of scam dreamed up by criminals seeking to prey on those who, because of their immoral behavior, have made themselves vulnerable to such a scheme.

Having never before received such a message, I was taken aback. However, because I knew that I had not done what the accuser had claimed—and because of the bad grammar and other clues—I was never frightened that the threat was real. I suppose a clear conscience is worth at least $450.

Evidently, some have been frightened enough to fork over the money. Business Insider reports that according to analysis of bitcoin wallets, “Some scammers have even made over $50,000 from the blackmail scheme.” To paraphrase Proverbs (28:1), though the threat is empty, the guilty will pay.

The ability to hack into other digital lives, along with the rampant use of online pornography, has made such a scam possible and profitable. As I’ve noted recently (more than once), the plague of porn has resulted in obscene numbers for obscene behavior. Consider:
People watched 4,392,486,580 hours of porn on PornHub in 2015. Just to put that in perspective, that means that in one year, people around the world spent 501,425 years watching pornography—on one porn site. 
On PornHub, people watched 87,849,731,608 porn videos. As the porn site hastened to point out, that’s 12 porn videos viewed for every single person on the planet.
With numbers such as those, it’s little wonder that savvy criminals thought they could dupe more than a few into literally paying for their sin. If one sends out 10,000 threatening emails, the odds are in one’s favor that a large portion of the recipients are indeed porn users. And among the users, there’s probably no small number trying to keep their lurid online life a secret. Almost certainly there are more than a few husbands, wives, politicians, teachers, and even ministers and pastors who would gladly pay $500 to $1,000—maybe more—to keep their porn lives from becoming public knowledge.

At $500 per recipient, with 10,000 emails, the scammers have to have only a one percent “success” rate in order to net $50,000. What’s more, when our conscience is troubled, our thinking is not clear, and we become easy targets for criminals. If we’re sweating whether someone really does know our sin, we often miss clues such as bad grammar, the absence of our name in the email, and so on, that might reveal the scam.

As we’ve become a culture nearly bereft of shame, sadly, many Americans would probably not care if their porn use was publicized. As the previous link reveals, when you concoct a foolish song and dance that hails your “sex junk,” declares that “sexuality’s a spectrum,” and demands that “Sex how you want it; It’s your god*amn right!” are you really going to care if anyone knows of your porn habit?

A few have even become rich and famous because they turned their personal lives into a porno. How many so-called celebrities have become well-known millionaires because a sex tape was “leaked?” How many others will be lured into trying the same, hoping to get similar results? Either way—whether or not earthly fame and fortune are achieved—lives are ruined.

Miriam Weeks—aka Belle Knox—the infamous Duke freshman who decided to pay for college with a career in the porn industry, describes her first scene as a porn star:
“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.” Nevertheless, Miss Weeks went on to complete her brief porn “career” and graduate from Duke—where she majored in, of course, “Women’s Studies” and “Sociology.” She is now—of course—in law school in New York. Is there any doubt she will soon be donning a vagina hat, joining in the #metoo chorus, lamenting the plight of women and telling us to vote for democrats?

One of the great lies of the porn industry, whether for a participant or a consumer, is that one can simply “disassociate” such activity from the rest of one’s life and whenever you like, just leave it behind. It’s a terrible lie. Whether disease, death, or despair, for decades now, porn use has wrought havoc on an addicted American culture. Divorce, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual assault, child sexual abuse (even in the church!), and other wickedness has roots in, or ties to the use of pornography. Thus, whether or not you are duped into paying blackmail, you will pay for your porn use. There is a way out. Confess, repent, and get help from those who know well your plight.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

What About Jerry Jones’ “Free Speech Rights?”

Whether it was his intended purpose or not, Jerry Jones just showed his team—and the rest of the NFL—how you’re supposed to conduct yourself at work when your speech is in conflict with the proper policies of your employer. As we continue to endure the foolish debate—which is rooted in a lie—over NFL players kneeling during our National Anthem, last week Jones told the Dallas Morning News that players for his team—the Dallas Cowboys—will stand during the playing of the anthem.

This declaration from Jones was somewhat contradictory to the new NFL policy adopted last May—but now in question—which allowed players who wished not to stand during the anthem to remain in the locker room while the anthem is playing. Jones’ assertion that his players stand for the national anthem also evidently violated an NFL gag order on the issue of players kneeling during the anthem.

Now, as an NFL owner, Mr. Jones is not an employee of the NFL in the same sense as are the players, but, like the players, he is subject to league policy. Thus, when the NFL told Jones to essentially “shut it” when it comes to the anthem issue, Jones obliged. According to the Star-Telegram,
Four days after seemingly defying the NFL and letting the world know about his team’s zero-tolerance policy regarding standing for the national anthem, Jones is now not talking about the issue because he has been told not to by the league.

Jones informed several local television stations who had booked him for interviews on their Sunday night show from training camp in Oxnard, Calif., that questions about the national anthem and his team’s policy were not permitted because the NFL had told him to stop speaking on the matter.
No screaming about his “First Amendment rights”—because, unlike many ignorant NFL players, he probably well knows that, in this situation, he has none; no crying about what a “bully” is the NFL; and no lying about “systemic racism” or widespread police brutality in the United States; just quiet, simple compliance—which is quite an accomplishment for Jerry Jones.

You see, it’s not so hard or complicated: employees at private owned businesses like the NFL don’t have the right to protest while on the clock. Again, unlike the ignorant NFL kneelers, Jones understands what’s best for his league and his business. The kneeling farce has become an expensive distraction for the world’s most powerful and lucrative sports league. The owners want this nonsense to end, and I don’t blame them.

They could go a long way to making this happen if they would stop pretending that those kneeling had a real cause. Of course we shouldn’t ignore police misconduct when it happens, but we certainly shouldn’t pretend that it’s a widespread problem in order to allow a handful of football prima donnas a political platform to get more democrats elected.

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

Friday, July 27, 2018

Libertarians (Like John Stossel) Need to Stand for the Truth on Marriage

John Stossel’s recent column, “Dads Needed,” contains some timely, important, but well-known—at least within the Christian conservative community—truths. Much of the column focuses on the work of author, speaker, and former feminist, Warren Ferrell—especially Ferrell’s new book The Boy Crisis. As Mr. Stossel explains,
In “The Boy Crisis,” Farrell notes that dads routinely get passed over when it comes to custody of kids, even though kids benefit enormously if they have male role models. Boys without fathers suffer more, he says.

Why does a same-sex role model matter more for boys?

“Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships and emotional connections,” answers Farrell. “So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects boys more profoundly than it does their sisters. Boys are then far more likely to be disobedient, delinquent, drop out of school.”
Along with his recent column, “Stossel on Reason” recently interviewed Dr. Ferrell. Here Ferrell notes, “Men and boys started falling behind when government began subsidizing single mothers.” He later adds, “It doesn’t make a difference whether she [a single mother] needs a man, it makes a difference that her children need a father.” Farrell also notes that children without fathers “do worse in 70 different areas,” and again declares, “They are far more likely to be disobedient, delinquent, drop out of school.”

As I implied above, almost none of this is new information. For literally decades, I, and many others, have often noted the negative outcomes not just for boys, but for all children who are raised in broken homes. What’s more, we have also long warned of the dangers that an out-of-control welfare state poses to children and families—particularly how it has contributed to the obscene rise in out-of-wedlock births in the U.S.

As most conservatives well know, the family has long been a target of liberalism, especially the militant feminist brand of liberalism. In 1973, Gloria Steinem, one of the most recognizable names and faces of feminazism, said,
We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage…By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God…We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.
Many organizations (which should include your church!)—with the support of tens of millions of like-minded Americans—have devoted decades of time, along with mountains of money and other resources, to fighting for the truth in the war on the family.

Nothing is as fundamental in this fight as is marriage. From the beginning of humanity the union of one man and one woman has defined what is a family and has been the means by which children are to be brought into the world and properly raised to adulthood. And nothing has been as contradictory to these eternal truths as is same-sex “marriage.”

Decades of rampant divorce and out-of-wedlock births have been far more devastating to children than has the perverse, but recent, redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity. However, before having to debate what is a marriage, when dealing with the brokenness of divorce and the illicit “hook-up” culture that has led to widespread out-of-wedlock births, we could at least still definitively point people to the absolute truth of marriage. No more.

Sadly, libertarians such as Stossel, Neal Boortz, and the like have been complicit in the left’s deceit when it comes to marriage and the family. In spite of the important truths on parenting, marriage, and family that Stossel has recently acknowledged, he was at best silent, and at worst openly hostile to the truth on marriage.

In his 2011 column, “The Gay Marriage Debate,” Stossel wrote,
As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way… If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn't diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?... I don't care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that's great… Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage.
Additionally, in 2015, on Facebook, Stossel said, “I happen to believe gay marriage is just fine, and I’ll happily join the wedding.” Of course, as his interaction with Dr. Ferrell and his teaching on children and parenting should have taught him, same-sex “marriage” is not “fine.” Among other immoral things like divorce and unwed motherhood, same-sex “marriage” results in this: in every sad situation, a helpless child is robbed of a parent. And as Dr. Ferrell—and countless others—well demonstrates, children who lose out on being raised by a mother and a father suffer.

In spite of the mountain of evidence—including, and especially, the Bible!—that reveals children need a mother and father, I can find no instance where Mr. Stossel has been critical of same-sex “marriage.” Likewise—and even more disturbing given his decades of writing and research on matters concerning children—I can find no instance where Dr. Ferrell has been critical of the perverse LGBT agenda on marriage.

Libertarians and conservatives agree, “That government is best which governs least.” Nothing promotes the smaller government that libertarians supposedly crave like the family. Strong and healthy families mean less crime, less welfare, less disease, better schools, better churches, a better economy, and so on.

A troubling trend with most libertarians is that they are often looking for science—“research,” “studies”—to tell them what sound morality has long revealed. For this reason, libertarians are often aligned with liberals on the moral issues and are quick to decry the “legislating of morality.” Of course, all good government is rooted in someone’s idea of morality. Like the rest of us, libertarians just have to decide by whose morality they wish to be governed.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

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.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

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.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com