Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

Book Facebook

If you "Like" this page, please visit our Facebook page for
The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Anti-Gun Laws Will Never Solve Gun Violence in America


Despite what the left-wing media wants you to believe, there is not an epidemic of mass shootings, or an epidemic of gun violence in general, in the United States. The data make this clear.

In fact—and again, in spite of what many in the media would have us believe—by many accounts, mass shootings are not even on the rise. Definitions of what constitutes a “mass shooting” vary, but using “standard definitions,” a recent piece in The Conversation—an academic and research journal—declares that “Mass shootings aren’t growing more common.”

In support of this conclusion, The Conversation article references data presented in USA Today:


Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, a leading expert with decades of experience on such matters, has long held that “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” This was true five years ago, as the graphic below, using Professor Fox’s data, reveals:


And it’s true today, as Professor Fox recently revealed to Reason. In a lengthy interview with Reason’s Nick Gillespie, Fox declared, “There is no evidence that we are in the midst of an epidemic of mass shootings.” Even the liberals at Politico agree. There, Grant Duwe, a research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and author of Mass Murder in the United States: A History, concludes that mass shootings are “roughly as common now as they were in the 1980s and ’90s.”

Not only are mass shootings still very rare, but they represent an extremely small portion of overall gun murders in the U.S. Even the liberals at Vox make note of this. While using a variety of data, including Professor Fox’s, Vox’s Dylan Matthews rightly reveals that “while tragic,” deaths as a result of mass shooting “are a tiny sliver of America’s gun homicide problem.”

What’s more, though we comprise about four-and-a-half percent of the world’s population, and though we own about half of the world’s privately owned guns, America accounts for less than half of one percent of the world’s murders. Likewise, across the U.S., this trend is similar: the presence of guns does not correlate to more gun murders. As this piece points out, many of the safest areas in America have the highest rates of gun-ownership.

Of course, in spite of these facts, after the most recent mass shooting—after any mass shooting—liberals in the media and the Democrat Party do what they always do. The media hypes the event, blames republicans and conservatives, paints America as awash in gun violence—especially mass shootings—and demands that politicians “Do something.” Of course, democrats couldn’t be happier to continue the script and pretend to have the answers for our so-called mass shooting “epidemic.”

Just days ago, Nancy Pelosi thundered, “Enough is enough!” She added, “The Republican Senate must end its obstruction and finally pass the common-sense, bipartisan, House-passed gun violence prevention legislation that the country is demanding.” As if gun violence—or any violence—can be prevented by mere legislation. This is what happens when one puts his or her hope and faith in the things of this world. We should expect no less from those who lustily applauded Obama’s egocentric exclamation “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for!”

Of course, the Screwball Score—otherwise known as the 20 democrats hoping to replace Donald Trump—eagerly joined in the “Do Something!” chorus on “gun control.” Desperate to get the media’s attention, Robert O’Rourke devolved into vulgarity—and even tried to profit from it. Sleepy-Creepy Uncle Joe stuck to the fake “end the epidemic” narrative. Fauxcahontas said that “Congress must act” to end gun violence. After all, she does know a bit about “acting.”

Julian Castro, formerly of the Obama administration, wondered “What is the number?” He then asked, “How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice to the NRA?” Castro and his ilk are the ones who should have to defend politics that results in death and violence because, guess what’s not a “tiny sliver of America’s gun homicide problem”? Urban violence.

In his new book, Bleeding Out, criminal justice scholar Thomas Abt reveals that, “Since October 2001, 410 people have died in domestic terrorist attacks & 520 have died in mass shootings. During that same period, at least 100,000 lost their lives to urban violence.” This should come as little surprise to those who are aware of the weekly happenings in Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson, St. Louis, and the like.

In other words, the real problem—if there is a real problem—with gun violence in the U.S. is the murder and mayhem that often plague democrat enclaves in urban America. Where are the cries of “Do something!” when it comes to the weekly gun violence in America’s cities? The silence is deafening.

Of course, we have virtual silence on the violence in urban America because the poverty, crime, violence, trash, rats, bad schools, etc. that infest urban America are the result of the rotten fruit of liberalism. After decades of almost complete democrat control, thousands of government “programs,” and trillions of taxpayer dollars, liberal politics and policies have solved none of the problems that plague America’s cities.

Yet we’re supposed to believe that democrats have the solution to mass shootings in America? Please. Along with having no real solutions to mass shootings, more often than not, mass shooters in America are a direct product of liberalism.

Again, how ironic and backward is it that those who tell us that children in the womb aren’t really human, humans with a penis and the Y-chromosome aren’t really men, men who are criminals are the good guys and the police the bad guys, marriage is not the union of one man and one woman, student loans don’t have to be repaid, blizzards are evidence of global warming, blasphemous art should be taxpayer funded, school prayer should not be allowed, the Ten Commandments should be removed, pornography should be constitutionally protected, and so on, now tell us it’s the right’s fault when young men bent on evil go on a killing spree?

Everything that might truly keep such young men from such evil—fathers, family, faith, and the like—the modern left despises and has targeted. Because they have made a god of government, instead of looking to what is really required to solve the problems of urban America—and the world over—the left would much rather make an enemy of firearms and seek legislation to restrict them.

Additionally, liberals in the United States have been directly complicit in the breakdown of the family. Whether divorce, fornication, marriage, prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, and so on, for decades now, in the name of “sexual freedom,” liberals have called what is evil good and what is good evil. They have preached, promoted, and even passed legislation in defense of these perverse “values.” Thus, it is little wonder that where democrat rule is absolute, America is ugliest and most dangerous. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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

Saturday, August 31, 2019

Rejection of Moral Absolutes Continues to Plague the Modern Left

If death—anyone’s death—brings you joy, you should intently re-examine your worldview. Even the just execution of a mass murderer—which I support in every case—should not bring anyone joy. As a Christian, I often find myself opposed—spiritually, politically, and otherwise—to those outside of my faith. However, I take no joy in anyone’s death, especially those outside of my faith. Christianity teaches that “each one of us will give an account of himself to God.” Any death that results in eternal separation from God is always particularly tragic.

However, for those who have put their faith in the things of this world, who are determined to rule their own world, death usually has no such significance. Thus, for such people, like the death of an “inconvenient” child, the death of an enemy is often something to celebrate. The most recent case in point is the death of the wealthy philanthropist David Koch. After Mr. Koch died, many on the left again found themselves in a celebratory mood. We shouldn’t be surprised that those who engage in or promote the evil “shout-your-abortion!” movement would celebrate the death of a political enemy.

Nor should we be surprised that the hate-filled American left would promise political—and perhaps other forms of—apocalypse if President Trump gets the opportunity to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who will actually follow the Constitution. Liberals dancing with joy over the death of Mr. Koch were soon brought back to earth with the same-day news that Justice Ginsburg underwent a fresh round of treatment for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas.

Despite our political, legal, and moral differences, I admire Justice Ginsburg for her strength and determination to do her job. As another recently noted, she has survived pancreatic cancer twice, lung cancer once, and colon cancer once. And she’s 86 years old. Many Americans—no matter their political stripes—would be very interested in getting the names of her oncologists.

In an interesting bit of irony probably lost on Justice Ginsburg and her like-minded ideologues, if the U.S. had Medicare-for-all, or some other version of single-payer healthcare—a dream of the American left—almost certainly Mrs. Ginsburg would’ve long ago departed this world. Thank God for the U.S. medical industry, right libs? (The U.S. has the world’s best cancer survival rates.)

In their foolish efforts to create “heaven on earth”—Utopia—modern liberals have often relied on the courts to give them what they could not otherwise gain by actually winning elections and passing legislation. Of course, this is why the left in the mainstream media—I repeat myself—and the U.S. Senate engaged in media malpractice and political treachery in their evil efforts to derail the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Many have implied that if President Trump has the opportunity to name Ginsgurg’s replacement, the battle that would erupt would make the Kavanaugh confirmation look like the Mayberry City Council debate on whether to hold a Founder’s Day parade. This shouldn’t be the case—because, as long as Senate republicans have his back, there is simply nothing democrats can do to stop President Trump from nominating and having confirmed any judge he wishes.

However, today’s Democrat Party is as far from rational as they are from moral—which is totally unsurprising as those two extremes often go hand-in-hand. Even more so than the vengeful tweets over a dead philanthropist or the angry threats over a potential Supreme Court vacancy, few things illustrate this as well as the gender debate the modern left insists we have.

After (frequently) pointing out—and being far from alone—that the stupid, evil notion of “gender fluidity” most harms females—including young girls—I keep thinking that the left will soon abandon this wickedness. Silly me. I forget how blindly stupid those corrupted by evil can be.

Recently the GOP candidate in Louisiana’s governor’s race, Ralph Abraham, made headlinesheadlines!—because he ran a 30 second ad that included the phrase “as a doctor, I can assure you, there are only two genders.” They were so aghast at MSNBC that host Chris Jansing declared that Abraham’s comments were “incendiary.” According to Newsbusters, Jansing’s guest—because, of course, the left must have their “experts” explain to us why there are not only two genders—went even further and said that to declare that there are only two genders is now “despicable” and “un-American.”

In other words, a statement that, just a few years ago, the vast majority of us would’ve considered so obvious that it was patronizing is now “incendiary” and “despicable.” Orwell was indeed a prophet.

Thus, it should come as little surprise that those who can’t tell the difference between who is a male and who is a female would choose to fight crime with euphemisms, still believes that “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” really happened, still thinks that man-made climate change is a real problem with a political solution, believes that widespread institutional racism still exists in America, and would conclude that “Seattle Has Figured Out How to End the War on Drugs.”

The latter bit of editorial “brilliance” was recently proffered by The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristoff. I guess Kristoff missed the fact that Seattle is Dying largely because of rampant drug abuse (and because, of course, “liberalism is killing it”). If he truly didn’t know this before, he does now because many of the 1300+ comments following his piece told him as much. Many of the comments were from Seattle residents.

SKM from Seattle wrote,
I live here and you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Downtown Seattle is a classic example of when inmates run the asylum. Downtown Seattle frequently feels like “Night of the Living Dead.” Quality of life issues here are outright dismissed, all in an effort to help drug addicted zombies that walk our streets. Sleeping in doorways, public defecation/urination, shooting up right in the open, blatant drug dealing w/ out any fear of incrimination, verbal abuse, etc. I can more easily get a summons for jaywalking here than dealing Fentanyl.
Another Seattle resident, “robofaust,” added,
As a 26 year resident of Seattle (and a x2 time voter for Ralph Nader and Obama), I couldn't disagree more. This city is littered with homeless drug addicts. Seattle’s choice to “decriminalize homelessness” is just another term for enabling the self-destruction of thousands of people… 
Every few days I come across people who are passed out, or worse yet, who are actively shooting up, at the foot of my home. Petty crime is rampant, and it is no longer possible to get the police to respond to a stolen bicycle or smashed car windows… 
The city’s drug addicts live in a parallel subculture that is disconnected from the lives of the locals who tolerate it in the name of social virtue. This subculture is a law unto itself, and is rife with predators who prey on the weak with violence, theft, and sexual abuse… 
There will be political reckoning in the city for this, sooner or later. Mr. Kristof’s analysis is deeply flawed.
In not just Seattle, but all over America, liberals have become “a law unto themselves.” Thus, the nastiness in Seattle is only the tip of the iceberg. Liberals think that Seattle is doing a good job with criminal drug users, that there are more than two genders, that marriage is whatever we define it to be, that killing the unborn is merely a “choice,” and so on, because the left in America long ago abandoned the idea that some things are settled for all time.

I certainly hope there is soon a political reckoning. There will certainly be a spiritual one.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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 12, 2019

Larry Burkett Was Right--About A Lot of Things

If you remember the late, great financial teacher Larry Burkett, your life is likely the better for it. I worked with Larry for several years in his Gainesville, Georgia headquarters of Christian Financial Concepts (and continued to work for the organization from home for many years after my children started coming along). In my mind, he ranks right up there with some of our Founding Fathers in his wisdom, love for this country, and amazing foresight in economic and political issues. He even left this world on the same patriotic day as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe—on Independence Day, 2003, at the young age of 63. His teachings, which were straight from Scripture, changed my life and bent the twig for my children and hopefully future generations.

The department in which I worked was tasked with answering constituents’ financial questions, so I had to be quite the student of Larry Burkett. In preparation for answering a certain e-mail, I had the opportunity to skim through the pages of Larry’s 1991 best seller, The Coming Economic Earthquake. The book was updated in 1994 to reflect the happenings of the Clinton era, and it’s amazing how accurate Larry was in his foresight of what was coming for our economy and for the nation, in general. He touched on many topics in the book, but some jumped out at me as especially relevant for today.

In light of the battles over the Common Core agenda that was shoved down the nation’s collective throat, Larry said, “Check out the curriculum being taught in your local schools and see if it is anti-free-market. It would shock most Americans to realize that a great deal of the economic information being fed their children in elementary schools, high schools, and especially state universities is blatantly socialistic, if not openly communistic.”

He went on,
The only place that communism still seems to flourish is in the American classroom. It is often labeled ‘socialism’ but, in reality, it is the same doctrine that was taught in the Soviet Union prior to the communism collapse: Government is the protector of the downtrodden; capitalism is inherently evil; people deserve decent incomes, regardless of their desire to work or not; and last, the government is a better purveyor of the nation’s resources than the wage earners are.
Sound familiar? The very issues that Larry saw as major problems 25 years ago have escalated at an alarming rate.

The government takeover of health care that was attempted during the Clinton administration was delayed only a few years until Obama came into power and had the political backing to force it onto the nation. Larry had great wisdom and forethought in this matter: “Let me say that if the federal government is allowed to take control of health care, which represents approximately 14 percent of our total economy, it will be the stake in the heart of our free enterprise system. The government cannot solve our health care problems—it is the problem!”

Larry continued,
Only twelve cents of every government dollar spent on health care now actually reaches a patient. It is a grossly inefficient system. There are two old sayings in Washington that describe what will happen to health care as soon as the political system gains control of that area too: ‘A camel is a horse designed by a government committee,’ and ‘An elephant is a mouse designed to government specifications.’
Wow. If only we had heeded his warning, maybe we wouldn’t be facing the disastrous effects of the government hijacking of our health care system.

Regarding abortion coverage, Larry said, “I rather suspect that, if abortion is accepted as a ‘necessary benefit,’ there would be heavy pressure put on those who oppose abortion to participate or be subjected to financial penalties.” Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing today? Ministries and faith-based companies (Hobby Lobby and James Dobson’s Family Talk are some of the most recognizable) have been forced to sue the federal government over the abortion mandate in Obamacare. Larry added,
Christians will have to take a stand on this issue, regardless of the consequences. We should have acted with one voice when the Supreme Court decided that somehow an unborn human has no rights. Once abortion is funded through a national health care plan, the number of abortions will likely escalate. God’s people must wake up to this offense now! There is no nation that will survive God’s wrath for long, if and when it decides to kill its young (and old).
When writing The Coming Economic Earthquake, Larry reported that at the current rate of growth, the national debt would swell to $8.7 trillion by the year 2004. Even Larry couldn’t anticipate the rate of reckless spending by the most liberal president in the history of our nation--Barack Obama. Thanks to democrats and republicans alike, I believe Larry would be utterly shocked to know that the national debt is now nearly three times his predicted 2004 level, and it is higher than the Gross Domestic Product of our entire nation.

Writing about the forecasted 2004 national debt of $8.7 trillion, Larry said,
There has never been anything approaching this level of debt funding in the history of mankind in so short a period of time, even on a percentage basis. The effects of this will be felt throughout the U.S. and ultimately the world’s economies…..Either the government will take the necessary steps to control the budget and reduce the deficits drastically, or they will resort to monetizing the debt by printing massive amounts of new currency.
We know which option our leaders chose.

Larry went on to say that,
Logic and common sense seem to play small parts in our present society….The answer [to these and all other issues] is found in God’s Word. All of these things are but symptoms. The real problem is that we have removed God from the decision-making process in America today. When any nation does this, evil will prosper. This is not the fault of the politicians; they are responding to the wishes of the most vocal groups. It is that the unprincipled people around us seem to be more committed to their agenda than the true ‘moral majority’ is to theirs.
Larry urged us to get involved in the political process and the issues of the day so that we could make a difference for the better. I would add that if we want to leave this great nation intact for our children and grandchildren, we have no choice but to hold our leaders accountable for their foolish decisions and force them to make changes that will lead us back to the founding principles that made us exceptional.

Some wise thoughts that Larry left us:
The one certainty is that God is still in control no matter what happens….However, knowing that God is in control does not remove our responsibility to do everything possible to change what is happening or to prepare ourselves for some difficult times. As Proverbs 16:9 says, ‘The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.’ 
We are to witness to those around us that God is sufficient in all things….God desires followers who will serve Him regardless of the costs. Adversity seems to strengthen us, whereas prosperity tends to weaken us. As the Prophet said in Proverbs 30:8-9, ‘Keep deception and lies far from me, give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is my portion, lest I be full and deny Thee and say, “Who is the Lord?” or lest I be in want and steal, and profane the name of my God.’
Larry Burkett left this earth entirely too soon. We need his wisdom now more than ever.

Michelle Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to Trevor Thomas, and homeschooling mom of four. Her books include a devotional for moms, Lord, I Need You, a book about her grief journey, Through Deep Waters, and a chronicle of their financial journey, Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and her email is michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Monday, August 5, 2019

Baltimore Needs Revival, Not More “Reparations”

To be fair, as far as I know, no one has (yet) directly blamed the blight of Baltimore on slavery and the lack of reparations. However, one could consider the billions trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds already spent on places like Baltimore a form of reparations. In that case, it should be clear that more money from the government is not going to fix places like Baltimore.

Ever since Lyndon Johnson and the Democrat Party gave us the infamous promises of the “Great Society”—which was supposed to result in “the total elimination of poverty and racial injustice”—for decades, liberals across the U.S. have promised minorities—especially black Americans—that if they would only vote for democrats, life would be better. Fifty-five years, dozens of welfare programs, and $20-plus trillion later, modern democrats are still making the same empty promises. Even Charles Barkley sees the folly of this.

Lyndon Johnson’s famous speech touting the Great Society was the commencement address at the University of Michigan in May of 1964. It was before a massive audience of about 90,000 people. The Michigan Quarterly Review published the text of the speech. The tagline at the top of the page boldly declared the purpose of the Great Society: “To Prevent an Ugly America.”

Whether we’re talking about Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, the homeless-lined streets of Los Angeles, the poop-filled streets of San Francisco, or the violent streets of Antifa-plagued Portland, I think everyone in his right mind can agree on how “ugly” much of America still remains—especially urban America.

What’s more, after all those programs and all that money, many U.S. cities are in much worse condition than before the Great Society was ever launched. As Ellie Bufkin—a former resident of Baltimore who refers to the city as her “cherished hometown”—recently and shockingly noted at The Federalist, “Baltimore’s homicide rate is so high that under current U.S. asylum laws, the residents could qualify for refugee status in the United States.” In other words, like so many other U.S. municipalities dominated by decades of democrat rule, Baltimore currently qualifies as one of the world’s “crapholes.”

As most well know, the Great Society gave us the so-called “War on Poverty.” More so than any other “conflict” in which the U.S. has been involved, the War on Poverty has, to a great extent, been an “abject failure.” As Edwin Feulner at The Heritage Foundation put it in 2014,
[T]he War on Poverty is an abject failure. As social critic Irving Kristol has observed, “the welfare state came gradually to be seen less as a helping hand to those in need, a ‘safety net,’ and more as a communal exercise in compassion toward an ever-expanding portion of the population.”
And yes, as Baltimore well illustrates, this “war” has had its casualties—including the loss of human life. As was reported last year, the vast majority of murders in the U.S. occur in a very small portion of the country. More than half of all murders in the U.S. occurred within just two percent of the counties. Over two-thirds (68 percent) of the murders in America occurred within only five percent of the counties.

Almost all of these counties are in large urban areas, where federal funds have flowed like lies from a liberal and where democrats have had virtually unhindered political rule for decades. As was noted a few years ago—and remains the case today—virtually all of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. have been dominated by democrats.

This danger has especially impacted the black community. Shockingly, the CDC reveals that for U.S. black males ages 15 to 34 the leading cause of death is homicide. What’s more, for American black males who die between the ages of 15 and 24, half of such deaths are from homicide. As has been often reported (but also often ignored), the vast majority (over 90%) of these homicides are the result of black-on-black violence.

Though one would never know it from the words of the race pimps that are so common among the left-wing media and the Democrat Party, such violence is of far more concern than any so-called systemic “racism” among the police. A recent study—that hasn’t received near the publicity it should have—reveals that the narrative that “racist” police are disproportionately killing black Americans to be the lie that many of us already knew it to be.

In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers from the University of Maryland and Michigan State University concluded:
We did not find evidence for anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparity in the police use of force across all shootings, and, if anything, found anti-White disparities when controlling for race-specific crime.
In other words, the riots we’ve seen in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the like are little more than “ugly” political theater fueled by lies from the left.

Nothing the modern left has to offer is going fix places like Baltimore. This is because what’s truly ailing Baltimore (and the like) defies a political solution, and the left is about little more than politics.

Like so many other dirty, crime-ridden areas, one of the biggest problems—if not the biggest problem—is the breakdown of the family. Along with never being able to fix such a problem, much to the contrary, the politics of the left is complicit in the destruction of the family in urban America. As The Heritage Foundation also notes,
The War on Poverty created negative incentives. Instead of promoting the growth of healthy families, the welfare system discouraged them. A single mother could receive larger payments from Uncle Sam by remaining single than by marrying the father of her child.

Over time, many fatherless children entered the world. The welfare checks showed up month after month, regardless of how their parents spent their days. As these boys and girls grew up without fathers around, they came to regard such households as natural. The social safety net, designed to be a temporary help to the people in need, instead kept them trapped in government dependency.
To end this dependency on government—on democrats—urban America must repent and return to the truth when it comes to marriage, the family, and the like. They must stop killing the unborn and stop listening to the lies of the left. To borrow from the deceived Marianne Williamson, urban America needs to awaken from their “dark days” and come to the light. For this, they need a revival.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, August 4, 2019

The Bible's Deborah vs. the Democrats' "Squad"

My family and I are participating with our church in reading through the Old Testament this year—a campaign called “OT19.” The last couple of weeks, we’ve been in the book of Judges. It has been a good refresher for me of the destructive pattern the Israelites developed after they wandered in the desert for 40 years and finally settled in the Promised Land. They would repeatedly disobey God, find themselves oppressed by their enemies, repent, and then come back to Him under the leadership of one of His people (a “judge”), serving Him faithfully for a few years. Then the cycle of disobedience would start again.

We are told in Judges 2:18-19,
Whenever the Lord raised up a judge for them, he was with the judge and saved them out of the hands of their enemies as long as the judge lived; for the Lord had compassion on them as they groaned under those who oppressed and afflicted them. But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers, following other gods and serving and worshipping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways.
It is in this context that we learn about an unusual leader that God chose during that time. Chapter 4 introduces us to the prophetess and judge, Deborah, wife of Lappidoth. I know that I’ve read the account of Deborah several times in years past, but I was particularly enthralled with her story this time, perhaps because of all of the hullabaloo in the media surrounding “women’s rights” and the “Me Too” movement.

The Israelites had been oppressed for 20 years when Deborah was first mentioned, and the Lord heard their cries for help. From what I understand, Deborah was the leader of the Israelites during that time. These were the days before Israel had a king. She heard disputes between the people and made decisions that affected them, but more impressive was that she was the military commander of the people. I’m amazed by that. It might be an indication of the deficit of leadership qualities among the males in the community at that time, but nevertheless, God raised up a female to lead His people for several decades.

The Israelites were living in bondage to the people of Canaan, and the Lord gave them instructions through Deborah to take 10,000 men and go into battle against their enemies. Deborah went with them into battle, and the Lord gave His people victory under the leadership of a woman. Another cool twist is that the Canaanite king was actually killed by another woman—Jael—a housewife! After this victory, God’s people lived in peace for 40 years. It was only when Deborah died that the people rebelled and became oppressed by their enemies once again.

Now let’s contrast the wise, godly, selfless, servant-leader who “arose as a mother in Israel,” Deborah, with some of our prominent female “leaders” of today. I’m quite baffled by the four freshman congresswomen who call themselves “The Squad.” All four of these women use race-baiting, climate alarmism, and seemingly continuous promises of free stuff to try to win voters to their way of thinking. In addition, Ilhan Omar, AOC, and Rashida Tlaib have regularly demonstrated openly hostile behavior toward Jews and the nation of Israel. Ayanna Pressley seems to believe that the only legitimate black voices are those that come from the political left. They are all pro-abortion, pro-socialism, pro-open borders, anti-gun, anti-Capitalism, anti-marriage, anti-God earth worshippers.

These four are so outside of the mainstream of the nation that I can’t figure out how they have gained the attention that they have. Maybe it’s similar to when someone has a large mole on her face or food between his teeth; you don’t mean to look but just can’t help yourself because you’re embarrassed for the person. That’s kind of how I feel about “The Squad.” As people here in Georgia like to say, “Bless their hearts!”

Matt Mackowiak of The Washington Times called them “a rabid pack of hyperliberal freshmen who are pushing the Democratic conference toward socialism.” Abraham H. Miller said, “The Squad hates this country; their only political motivation is to destroy it. The color of their skin is only important because they choose to hide behind it and make it an issue.” Senator Lindsey Graham said, “We all know that AOC and this crowd are a bunch of communists.” And Mark Levin said,
The evidence is overwhelming that these women are anti-Semite bigots and they don’t hide it. They don’t hide it. The BDS movement, their constant references to Hitler and the Third Reich and concentration camps, they have no knowledge of history. They’ve never visited these sites.
I can’t pretend to understand what makes these women tick, other than the age-old heart disease called sin. What I do know is that their political agenda could not possibly be much further from God’s heart. He values attributes like those that Deborah displayed: courage, integrity, honesty, humility, kindness, wisdom, righteousness, and “the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:4). “The Squad” would do well to shut their mouths, repent, and endeavor to be more like Deborah.

Michelle Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new devotional book for moms called Lord, I Need You, a book about her grief journey called Through Deep Waters, and a chronicle of their financial journey called Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

The Left’s War on Women

One of the ugliest secrets about abortion is that, worldwide, girls are much more likely to be killed in the womb than are boys. This has resulted in an alarming male-to-female ratio in multiple countries. Even the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch has recently declared that “You Should Be Worrying about the Woman Shortage.”

The piece notes that in India and China alone, there’s “now an estimated 80 million extra men.” Surprisingly, the piece acknowledges that this gross disparity is due to the gross policy of sex-selective abortion. Unsurprisingly, instead of blaming the evil practice of the killing of any unborn child, the Human Rights Watch article blames “gender discrimination” and concludes, “When women lack equal rights and patriarchy is deeply engrained, it is no surprise that parents choose to not to have daughters.” Silly me. I thought the left supported any excuse to kill the unborn.

As most anyone with a proper worldview well knows, along with the tragic deaths of tens of millions of the most innocent and helpless among us, it turns out that the practice of abortion has other awful consequences. As Human Rights Watch notes,
The woman shortage is having harmful consequences in China and sometimes in neighboring countries. Human Rights Watch looked at one of those consequences for a report forthcoming in 2019 focused on bride-trafficking from Myanmar to China. In Myanmar’s Kachin and northern Shan states, bordering China, long-standing conflict escalated in recent years, displacing over 100,000 people. Traffickers prey on vulnerable women and girls, offering jobs in, and transport to, China. Then they sell them, for around $3,000 to $13,000, to Chinese families struggling to find brides for their sons. Once purchased, women and girls are typically locked in a room and raped repeatedly, with the goal of getting them pregnant quickly so they can provide a baby for the family. After giving birth, some are allowed to escape—but forced to leave their children behind.  
There is evidence of similar patterns of bride migration and trafficking in Cambodia, North Korea, and Vietnam, and more may emerge from other countries bordering China. Importing women doesn’t solve the shortage—it spreads it.
“Nothing like this has happened in human history,” begins a lengthy Washington Post piece from last year on the vast male to female ratio that exists in China and India. In over 6,000 words and four chapters, along with detailing the trafficking and purchasing of “brides,” the Post piece also notes the widespread loneliness and depression that grip men who have little to no hope at marriage and a family, and it rightly concludes that the sad consequences of killing unborn girls extends far beyond China and India. Yet, in all that ink, the Post mentions abortion once. Instead of pointing to abortion to explain why there are “Too Many Men,” the Post instead refers to various technologies and vague “policies.”

Just days ago, Breitbart reported on an investigation into 132 Indian villages where, over a three-month period early this year, zero girls were born. In 2016, The Daily Signal reported on a study that concluded that sex-selective abortions are a U.S. problem as well. Nevertheless, again demonstrating that they oppose any restrictions on the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us, democrats across the U.S.—including in a 2012 U.S. House vote on the matter—are near unanimous in their opposition to sex-selective abortion bans.

However, the modern left may have found a way to replace the millions of missing girls the world over: allow men to identify as women. According to current leftist-think, the millions of lonely men longing for a bride and a family should have no complaints or hesitation when it comes to dating and marrying a “trans-woman” (a gender-deluded man who’s pretending to be a woman). After all, men who refuse to date or marry a “trans-woman” would be guilty of “discrimination,” and there’s no place for that in the modern world.

Or perhaps there’s another way to solve the missing female/loneliness problem. Since the left has now decided that men can get pregnant and have abortions, and that marriage is whatever one wants it to be—and thus people can even “marry” themselves—lonely men can simply start a family by marrying themselves and having their own children—including girls!

Never mind that, among other wicked things, the absurdity of the evil trans agenda is literally taking trophies, medals, scholarships, and money away from women. As I warned years ago, whether high school, college, Olympic, or the professional ranks, women at every level of athletics are being threatened by the evil trans-agenda.

Even worse, gender-deluded men and boys invading locker rooms, bathrooms, and dressing rooms pose a great threat to women and girls. Of course, all of this is aided and abetted by leftist politicians—i.e., the Democrat Party—and courts. Thus, gender-deluded men and women continue to obtain political and legal protection for their perverse ideology. As I’ve warned (more than once), as a result of this perversion, real women and girls are chief among those who will suffer the most.

What set the trans-madness in motion was the epic and disturbing 5-4 (take note, John Roberts: liberals aren’t afraid of 5-4 rulings to overturn “precedent”) Obergefell ruling. Many warned of the wide-ranging and tragic consequences of legally redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity. However, few imagined “married” homosexual couples using women as “breeding machines.”

Thus, and in spite of their efforts to paint conservatives as such, it is the totalitarian left who has given us real-life Handmaids. As Jennifer Hartline wisely put it,
People who are quick to fill social media with images of handmaids in red and denounce the diminishment of women to mere breeders seem to have nothing but adulation for gay men who literally use a woman — her body, time, energy, freedom, health, and her very life — in order to get what they want. These men do not need her as a person. They need her as a gestater, a human incubator. They have no real regard for the irreplaceable value and role of a mother in a child’s life. If they did, they could never contemplate what they are so pridefully pursuing.
Thus we see that it’s leftists who often have “no real regard” for mothers, or daughters, housewives, female athletes, young ladies, unborn girls, and so on. Women—and right-minded men—who vote would do well to remember this.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, July 28, 2019

Housewives: "Dependent Creatures"! "Parasites"!

In 2013, then U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to liberal “feminist,” Gloria Steinem. This is the highest honor that the U.S. bestows on civilians. Freedom for what, you might ask? Well, I’m not sure, considering that she’s a champion for abortion. Seems a tad oxymoronic (Did I just say “moronic”?!) to be for women’s “rights” while ignoring the rights of all of the unborn women in the process. But I digress.

Steinem had this to say about me and the millions of other women like me: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” Okay, well, I wasn’t yet born when she said that, but I still find it quite offensive and degrading, especially in today’s culture that’s all about “empowering women.” And this is the woman who was awarded a medal—BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Carolyn Graglia is a lawyer who left her law practice to stay home and raise her children. In an article that she wrote for The Weekly Standard, she discussed Betty Friedan, “feminist” writer and activist, who also had a negative view of homemakers. Graglia wrote,
Friedan described the housewife in The Feminine Mystique as a ‘parasite’ who lives without using adult capabilities or intelligence and lacks a real function when devoting herself to children, husband, and home. Decrying the housewife's life as a ‘waste of a human self,’ Friedan likened her and her fellow matrons to ‘male patients with portions of their brain shot away and schizophrenics.’ Housewives are ‘less than fully human,’ she said, for they ‘have never known a commitment to an idea,’ ‘risked an exploration of the unknown,’ or ‘attempted . . . creativity.’ That this could be said of women, who literally create life within their wombs, indicates the degree to which feminism has sought to denature women, to reshape them in man's image.
On housewives/homemakers, noted sociologist and “feminist” “scholar” Jessie Bernard declared,
[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may really have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.
Dumb and dull? Dependent creature? Parasite? Schizophrenic? Sadly, many on the left—especially women on the left—still harbor these hateful feelings toward stay-at-home moms. Being a homemaker, I’m taken aback and highly offended that people would not only think such nonsense but would actually speak or write it for others to read and hear, and there are many more such quotes out there, as you can imagine. I studied these loonies when I was working on my own sociology degree back in the 90s, but even then, as a college kid, I knew they were nuts.

I won’t argue that being a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom is intellectually stimulating at every moment, but it is what we make of it. No doubt, these “champions” of feminism want children to be in the control of the government at the earliest ages possible. They push for taxpayer-funded daycare and preschool, in addition to the massive public K-12 education system so that children can be properly indoctrinated for their entire young lives. I suppose it’s too logical that mothers would raise their own children. Of course, many of these so-called “feminists” think that the earth is overpopulated and that we shouldn’t be having children, anyway.

I will admit that I’m pretty dependent on my husband’s income, and I’m very thankful that he’s a wonderful provider for our family. However, there are two sides to the story. On the one hand, he has much more earning potential than I do because he has two graduate degrees, and he wants to work outside the home. On the other hand, he affirms that I’m much better suited to the day-to-day duties of childrearing, cooking, budgeting, and caring for our home (as I believe most women are).

I love having the freedom (That is what Steinem, Friedan, and Bernard championed, right?) to raise our children, to educate them, to stretch our dollars by couponing, to write books, to volunteer at church, to handle our family’s finances, to feed us and clothe us, to be involved in all of my kids’ activities, to care for our home, and ultimately to “be there” for my family.

I really don’t have to justify myself to anyone except the Lord. To be quite frank, I think He’s pretty pleased with homemakers and moms. After all, this is what He had to say about us many moons ago:
A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life…She is clothed with strength and dignity, she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed, her husband also, and he praises her…Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. (Proverbs 31:10-12, 25-28, 30)
(See this column at American Thinker.)

Michelle Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new devotional book for moms called Lord, I Need You, a book about her grief journey called Through Deep Waters, and a chronicle of their financial journey called Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Monday, July 22, 2019

The Moon Race: Godless Socialism vs. Faithful Americanism

By 1927, Robert 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.”

Called “The Father of the Space Age,” Goddard was the first scientist to give serious scientific treatment to the idea that space travel was possible. As is noted in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, before 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. With funding from Daniel Guggenheim—an American mining magnate and philanthropist—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.

Goddard was credited with much of the progress the Germans achieved with the V-2 rocket. In 1963, Wernher von Braun—who oversaw the development of Germany’s V-2 rocket—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.”

In the fall of 1932, just prior to the Nazis coming to power in Germany, von Braun began working for the German army. With the Nazi focus on rebuilding Germany’s military, significant resources for rocket research were made available. Work was done, not only with ballistic missiles, but also “rocket-planes.”

After the defeat of the Nazis, the U.S., Great Britain, and the Soviet Union rushed to get their hands on German rocket technology. Von Braun and over 100 other V-2 personnel surrendered to the U.S. forces. A V-2 engineer famously said: “We despise the French; we were mortally afraid of the Soviets; we do not believe the British can afford us, so that leaves the Americans.” Also, von Braun reasoned that the United States “was the nation most likely to use its resources for space exploration.”

After their surrender to the Americans, Dr. von Braun declared,
We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided by the Bible could such an assurance to the world be best secured.
A nation “guided by the Bible” would have a life-changing impact on Wernher von Braun. Born into a Lutheran family in what is now Poland, while gaining prominence as a rocket scientist in the German empire of the late 1930s and early to mid-1940s, von Braun led a life that was mostly devoid of any real faith in God. That changed shortly after he entered the U.S. As Darrin Rodgers notes,
In Texas, while living at Fort Bliss, a neighbor invited [von Braun] to church. He went, expecting to find the religious equivalent of a country club. Instead, he found a small white frame building with a vibrant congregation of people who loved the Lord. He realized that he had been morally adrift and that he needed to surrender himself to God. He converted to Christ and, over the coming years, became quite outspoken in his evangelical faith and frequently addressed the complementarity of faith and science.
By 1946, V-2s were being launched from American soil. Such efforts led to the United States achieving 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. The U.S. was the first to put animals into space. On June 14, 1949, the U.S. put the first mammal in space.

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. In spite of all the technological, industrial, and human resource advantages held by the United States, with the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik (Russian for “satellite”) 1, on October 4, 1957, the Soviets, not the Americans, ushered in the space age. The news shocked the world.

On January 31, 1958, America joined the Soviets in space. Under the direction of Dr. von Braun, launched aboard the Juno I rocket, the Explorer I was the first satellite of the United States. However, through the next several years the Soviets achieved a number of other notable firsts in the space race.

The Soviets were the first to have a satellite to reach the vicinity of the Moon and the first to have a satellite reach heliocentric orbit (orbit around the Sun). They were also the first nation to land a man-made object on the Moon. In August of 1960, Sputnik 5 was the first space flight to carry animals into orbit and return them safely to earth. On April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in outer space.

On May 5, 1961, aboard the space capsule Freedom 7, Alan Shepard became the first American to travel into space. In August of 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Gherman Titov manned the first space flight lasting over 24 hours. Significantly, Titov would soon tell the world, “Sometimes people are saying that God is out there. I was looking around attentively all day but I didn’t find anybody there. I saw neither angels nor God.” The Soviets were quick to use this in their anti-religious propaganda.

By the 1960s, the godless Soviets also quickly fell far behind America in the race to put a man on the moon. In a stark contrast to the atheist Titov, von Braun, the technical architect of the Saturn V vehicle that took men to the moon and back, is quoted as saying,
[T]he more we learn about God’s creation, the more I am impressed with the orderliness and unerring perfection of the natural laws that govern it. In this perfection, man—the scientist—catches a glimpse of the Creator and his design for nature.
As has been the case throughout American history, there’s little doubt that such a humble, biblically based worldview played no small role in the U.S. beating the Soviets to the moon. Only one nation on earth—the United States of America—had the taxpayer funding, the technical capability, the infrastructure, the many thousands of private contractors, and the moral character necessary to rise to the near-impossible challenge of the Apollo space program.

In December of 1968, almost exactly seven months prior to the Apollo 11 moon mission, the three astronauts of Apollo 8, in what was the most-watched television broadcast of its time, read word-for-word the first 10 chapters of the book of Genesis. During the Apollo 11 mission, after landing on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, a devout Christian, took Holy Communion on the moon. A year later, Aldrin said that he chose to do such to symbolize “the thought that God was revealing Himself there, too, as man reached out into the universe. For there are many of us in the NASA program who do trust that what we are doing is part of God’s eternal plan for man.”

Notably, only twelve men, all Americans, have walked on the surface of the moon. I believe the humility and reverence the USA displayed during the Apollo program was one of the reasons God blessed it. If we wish to accomplish similar things as a nation, we would do well to remember such.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, July 15, 2019

Sorry Ladies; It’s Just Biology, Psychology, and Economics

Just like probably 90 percent or so of those virtue signaling in favor of “pay equality” for the American women who won the FIFA Women’s World Cup, I’ve never paid to attend a women’s soccer game. In fact, as best I can recall, I’ve never paid to attend ANY women’s sporting event. The only girl I’ve ever paid to watch compete in sports is the beautiful and talented Caroline Thomas—the (now) 13-year-old karate champion:


Yeah, that’s my girl, and she has about 15 of those first-place trophies—in both karate fighting (which involves contact, but is not very violent) and forms, or “kata.” Caroline also plays in a co-ed basketball league. Like most other fathers, I would pay (up to a point) to watch my daughter show off her talents in almost any venue—whether in sports, performing on stage, or in a cooking contest (Caroline also likes to cook). However, it doesn’t mean that the public at large is interested in forking over their hard-earned dollars to watch my daughter perform—especially in the realm of athletics.

The “inequality” that exists in women’s sports is nothing new, and in spite of what many on the left would have us believe, involves nothing nefarious. As I noted several years ago, the fact that consumers overwhelmingly prefer men’s sports to women’s sports is merely a matter of biology and psychology and not due to some mythical misogynistic plot. The facts and the data clearly bear this out.

Just as was the case in 2015—the latest data available when I last wrote about this issue—in 2018, when examining sports audiences, men’s sports dominated television ratings. Of the 50 most-watched sporting events in 2018, 43 of them were men’s football—40 NFL games and three college football games. The other seven were events from the Winter Olympics.

According to Sports Media Watch, including pre-game coverage, Fox earned a 7.7 rating and had 12.98 million viewers for the Women’s World Cup final. These number are nowhere close to what was needed to make the top 50 most-watched sporting events of 2018. The 50th place event—Winter Olympics night 6—had an 11.4 rating and 19.3 million viewers. There’s virtually no doubt the Women’s World Cup final will not make 2019’s top 50 list either.

If you exclude the NFL and the Winter Olympics, women’s sports are still nowhere to be found among the most-watched sporting events in 2018. Again, as was the case in 2015, even non-humans outperform women’s sports in viewership—two of the 2018 non-NFL/Winter Olympics top 50 were horse racing events. The Kentucky Derby was 16th on this list with an 8.5 rating and 15 million viewers.

When it comes to television audience and paid attendees, the women’s professional sports that compete annually are not in the same universe as men’s sports—or even horse racing. In 2018, the top-rated women’s tennis event was the U.S. Open Women’s final. It earned a 1.9 rating with 3.1 million viewers. The top-rated women’s golf event for 2018 was the U.S. Women’s Open Final Round. It earned a 0.6 rating with 878,000 viewers. The top-rated WNBA event for 2018 was the WNBA All Star Game. It earned a 0.5 rating with 709,000 viewers.

Thus, as such consumer data implies, according to Forbes—from boxer Floyd Mayweather ($285 million) to basketball player Nicolas Batum ($22.9 million)—of the world’s 100 highest paid athletes in 2018, not a single female athlete made the list. Again, there is nothing evil at work here; it is simply a matter of economics. Whether in person or through television or live streaming on their phone or computer, fans simply prefer to watch men compete than women.

Of course, this does not mean that fans are “discriminating” against women. Fans are discriminating, just not in the way the “equal pay” loons of the left would have us believe. I’ve jokingly told the left before how to make women’s sports more interesting: allow men to compete as women. Forgetting that the left takes jokes and makes them into policy, I never thought they would take me up on it.

Given the pay disparity that already exists among male and female athletes, and given how the left is determined to convince us that this is “unfair,” the fact that liberals are now allowing men to take trophies and dollars from women is the height of absurdity. It just goes to show how tragically devoted to the perverse LGBT agenda is the modern left.

Unless the left continues down this road where gender-deluded (or financially savvy?) men are allowed to compete as women, there will never be “equal pay” or “gender equality” when it comes to athletics, because human genders are not—and will never be—equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women. And “bigger, faster, and stronger” makes for more exciting and interesting sports.

What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who has observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women. As Psychology Today points out:
The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger than the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.
As Ann Coulter noted over a decade ago, “Competitive sports are ritualized forms of fighting, and boys like to fight.” In other words, sports—especially those involving heavy contact—is a form of battle, and in spite of what the foolish left would have us believe, men are much more suited for battle than are women. No amount of legislation, legal wrangling, or whining is going to change these facts.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, July 14, 2019

“Pride” Goes Before Destruction

My husband Trevor and I recently took our four children to Washington, D.C. for the first (and likely last) time. It was amazing to see the historic monuments and to tour the Capitol building and the museums. It is truly rich with history and tradition and grandeur.

What was not so amazing were the rainbow flags all over the city and the homeless encampments and the ghetto-like areas and the sirens at night and the filth. D.C. is a liberal cesspool, and it shows. I did all of the driving while we were there because Trevor was struggling with a pinched nerve. I wonder if the many, many honks that I received while driving around the city were the result of my “Choose Life” license plate or my driving skills. I’ll never know. But as you might imagine, we had some wonderful opportunities to teach our children about the very visible and tangible differences between our wonderful, conservative Northeast Georgia district versus life in the most liberal area of the country. I don’t think they will forget those lessons any time soon.

I have been sickened lately by all of the commercials and signs and shows touting “Pride” for the LGBT lifestyles. I get a bit confused by all of the initials that they use, and it seems that they keep adding more and more. Maybe when they’re finished we could just sing the “ABCs” to describe all of their various lifestyle “choices.”

I logged onto my AT&T account the other day and saw a rainbow globe as their new logo. A commercial for cosmetics company Sephora that airs multiple times during one of the shows that we watch is filled with men pretending to be women. Various commercials flash scenes of homosexual couples in their ads, seemingly to kowtow to that miniscule, militant portion of our population. Even an email that I received from our local grocery store, Kroger, the other day had a “Pride” section in it, detailing what Kroger is doing to help celebrate sin. And it seems that nearly every show and movie these days—even kids’ shows—have inserted some sort of transvestite character or homosexual or other similar perversity. Big companies and Hollywood are forcing this issue before our eyes in the hopes that we will begin to accept it as “normal.”

I recently read a quote by pastor and author, Francis Chan. He said, “In a postmodern culture obsessed with feelings and political correctness, the Church must stop apologizing for ‘the way that God thinks and acts and what He says is right and wrong.’” Pastor Chan is absolutely right. The rabid LGBTQXYZ movement is trying to browbeat those of us who agree with what God says about their lifestyle, and I’ve had enough. It doesn’t matter how much “pride” they show; their lifestyle choices will remain perverse, wrong, gross, and above (or below) all, sinful.

As parents and grandparents, we must be diligent in teaching our children and grandchildren that what God says is wrong is really wrong. They are being pulled away from the truth on these issues right and left. They are being indoctrinated in our public schools, and they are inundated with messages in the media that celebrate repulsive lifestyles.

When I pray with our children at night before bed, I often pray that God will help us to love what He loves and hate what He hates. We know from His Word that He loves people but hates sin. We need to follow His lead by loving those who are so miserable that they feel the need to look for acceptance and affirmation in perversity. I’ve read stories and watched interviews with people who came out of the evil LGBT lifestyle, and almost without fail, each one who turned to that lifestyle did so because of abusive situations in their childhoods. They felt so damaged and dirty that they turned to those with whom they felt they could be accepted and loved.

Maybe instead of celebrating and defending something that is destructive and harmful and immoral, we as a nation and as states and as communities and as individuals should put more value on counseling these people and praying for them and helping them to find true healing and hope. Some states are going so far as to make it illegal even to provide counseling for people struggling with these issues. What insanity!

Sometimes I feel like we are living in the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, in which everyone sees that the emperor is really naked, but no one wants to speak up and tell him. Finally, a small child honestly and accurately exclaims, “But he hasn’t got anything on.” Even children know the truth about the LGBT agenda. They know that men and women go together and that men aren’t supposed to wear makeup and dresses. Let’s not be duped by the pressure of the crowd into supporting and believing in wickedness.

God said in Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” The rainbow was God’s idea and a symbol of His mercy for all mankind. Let’s take it back for purposes that are good and noble and pure. When it’s all said and done, I’d much rather stand by God’s side for all of eternity than on the side of political correctness on this earth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Michelle is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new Through Deep Waters: Finding Healing and Hope in Devastating Grief, Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World, and a soon-to-be-released devotional book for moms called Lord, I Need You. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

“Ancient Principles” Birthed the Greatest Nation the World Has Ever Known

(The following is taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America.)

On the same day that the Declaration of Independence became official, an extremely telling event further reveals that our founders understood well the “ancient principles” upon which our republic must be built. On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee—consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams—to design an official seal for the United States. Adams proposed an image of Hercules contemplating the persuasions of Virtue and Sloth.

Franklin proposed a biblical theme:
Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto: Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.
Nineteenth Century Artistic Rendition of Franklin’s Proposed Design for the U.S. Seal

Likewise, Jefferson preferred a biblical theme. According to a letter from John Adams to his wife Abigail, Jefferson proposed:
The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.
Our founders understood well that the story of Moses embodied what they hoped would be the story of America. Bruce Feiler, author of America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story, says that, more than any other ancient figure, “Moses embodies the American story. He is the champion of oppressed people; he transforms disparate tribes in a forbidding wilderness into a nation of laws; he is the original proponent of freedom and justice for all.”

The committee agreed on an image of thirteen linked shields, each bearing the designation of a state and the motto “E Pluribus Unum,” along with the all-seeing eye of the Creator inside a triangle. On the reverse side was the biblical scene and the motto “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

However, Congress tabled the matter for several years and eventually adopted the seal and the motto as we have them today. On the reverse side of the seal is a 13-step pyramid, with the year 1776 in Roman numerals along the base. At the top of the pyramid is the Eye of Providence with the Latin motto ANNUIT COEPTIS (“[God] has favored our undertakings”) in the sky above. As the coming Revolutionary War would further prove, God had indeed “favored” the undertakings of the United States. Such favor was no doubt due to the firm faith demonstrated by those who sought to build a nation that, as Puritan leader John Winthrop would envision nearly a century-and-a-half earlier, would serve the world as a “City upon a Hill.”

After defeating the British, the trouble for the new United States of America was far from over. Winning a war was one thing; creating a functioning and thriving nation was quite another. It was becoming clear that the U.S. was not going to survive under the Articles of Confederation. After the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America would wait another 11 years (13 years before it would actually go into effect) for the strong charter of liberty called the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution would provide the enduring legal strength necessary for the U.S. to survive and thrive as a republic.

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, Maryland, and South Carolina made it eight states.

New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to ratify the Constitution. As I note in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, in order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in favor of the U.S. Constitution, Samuel Langdon, a distinguished theologian and scholar, 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” 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 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.

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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