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

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Thursday, April 29, 2010

"Demonizing" Democrats

The following shocking statements were directed at the President of the United States:
“It is a disgrace. This administration is a disgrace.”
“(He) is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people.”
“He's embarrassing... He's not my president. He will never be my president.”
“You (and your administration) are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings.”
“I hate (him). I despise him and his entire administration — not only because of its international policy, but also the national.”
“I don't want add fuel to the fire, but I don't know what it's going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers.”
Boy, did the liberals hate George W. Bush. That’s right—every one of the above statements was directed at President Bush. The rage on display here was not conjured up by everyday Americans, such as those attending the TEA parties, but by celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Joy Behar, and Jessica Lange.
In other words, these comments were made by those who have a much larger microphone than the Americans participating in the TEA parties that many liberals now seemed so concerned about. Liberals then were not so concerned with “demonizing the government,” as Bill Clinton recently put. (I suppose it matters who you imagine as a “demon” for there to be concern.)
What’s more, YouTube is replete with videos of protests during the Bush administration that show protestors brandishing signs that say things like: “George W. Bush is a terrorist!”; “Team Bush: The True Axis of Evil”; “F-ck Bush”; “Dead or Alive” sign with the name “George W. Bush”; and so on. Then there was the Bush Assassination film.
This slander and violence was at least ignored, and at worst parroted, by a media that showed no concern about “inflammatory” or “inciting” statements directed at the President of the United States.
But it wasn’t just the kooky celebrities and deranged protestors on the left who were unhinged in their anger. Take note of some of the comments made during Bush’s eight years by leaders of the Democratic Party:
“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore
“The man's father is a wonderful human being, I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid
“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi
“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson
“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark
“American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.”—Dick Durbin
“In the last six and a half years we have seen a dangerous experiment in extremism in the White House.”—Hillary Clinton
“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards
“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton
“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid
“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi
“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean
“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy
Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
The TEA Party protests have miles to go before they approach the vitriol that was directed at Bush over a period of several years. And once again the mainstream media finds itself shamefully guilty of the hypocrisy and bias that it is so frequently accused of.
Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Democrats and Wall Street

According to Politico, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday (4/22/10) that he will not wait for Democrats and Republicans to reach a bipartisan compromise on a Wall Street reform bill, scheduling the first key test vote for Monday.
“I’m not going to waste any more time of the American people while they come up with some agreement,” Reid said. “The games of stalling are over.”
“…Democrats have made a political calculation that at least some Republicans will feel compelled to back the bill Monday, even without any changes – and if they don’t, it’s the GOP that looks bad.”
It seems that Senate Majority Leader Reid, weary after the long health care battle, is not in the mood for another lengthy legislative fight. And for this reason alone he is better positioned to move the liberal agenda? I don’t think so. Also, just because the GOP is unwilling to support more bad liberal legislation they are the ones who are going to look bad? Again, I don’t think so.
The Republicans were hardly damaged goods after the health care debate. Currently, nearly every generic congressional poll has the Republicans in the lead. Rasmussen has the Republicans with a 10 point lead over Democrats.
Also, Americans are still strongly opposed to the Democrats’ latest and greatest legislative achievement, Obamacare. Rasmussen has Americans opposing Obamacare by 20 points. Quinnipiac shows the opposition up by 14 points, and the last Fox News poll reveals Americans opposing Obamacare by 15 points.
What’s more, with significant election victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Republicans should be nothing but emboldened when it comes to standing against the liberal agenda being championed by today’s Democrat Party. Of course, with the Massachusetts victory giving the Republicans 41 Senate seats, the Democrats can do nothing without some Republican support. As long as the polls stay where they are, what is the Republican motivation to relent?
Furthermore, despite the stereotypes, when it comes to financial reform, and when one actually looks at the facts, the Democrats are no position to paint themselves as standing against the big money and influence of Wall Street. According to this from Open Secrets, the current big money from large corporations OVERWHELMINGLY goes to Democrats over Republicans. Notice who is #65 on the list, tilting “Strongly Democratic.” That’s right. The liberal poster child for financial reform: Goldman Sachs.
And when it comes to the “party of the rich,” again according to Open Secrets, of the top 50 individual donors, 34 were “Strongly” to “Solidly” Democratic (one “Leaned” Democratic).
Given all of this, if Republicans stand firm and united and preach the facts, there is no reason to allow the Democrats another bad legislative victory. 
Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Liberals and the "Least of These"

Back in 2008, prior to the election, when then candidate Barack Obama was asked by pastor Rick Warren what he thought was, “the greatest moral failure of America,” he responded with, “I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me…”

After making up his mind to vote in favor of Obamacare, Georgia Representative Sanford Bishop said, “Unfortunately I think that my constituents are split right down the middle, so in a sense I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.” He continued, “If I’m going to be damned, I want to be damned on the side of the angels, on the side of what I think will be an obligation as a Christian to take care of the least of (us) and to make sure people are treated fairly.”

It is very interesting that liberals, while defending their views and their votes in support of big government, reference this Scripture. The Scripture, as Obama noted, is from the book of Matthew, contained in Jesus’ parable of The Sheep and The Goats.

The parable begins, “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (How intolerant of Him!) 

The parable is a description of how Christ will separate the righteous from the unrighteous. (This, one would think, would be reason enough for liberals to avoid referencing such Scripture.) The distinguishing characteristic between the two groups is whether or not they cared for people in need. Matthew 25:40 says, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Thus, reason many liberals, the work of the righteous would include empowering government to help those in need. And, of course, the implication is that if you oppose such efforts, you are on the side of the unrighteous. However, nowhere in this parable, or anywhere else in Scripture, for that matter, does Christ advocate that His people use the force of government to do His work.

What’s more, it is appallingly duplicitous that liberals, when referring to caring for the “least of us,” are never talking about the unborn. Whatever moral causes one chooses to champion, nothing compares to the helplessness of an unborn child. In other words, there is no one among us more “least” than the unborn. It is the height of hypocrisy for liberals to preach about “social justice” and reference the “least of us,” while supporting policies which have lead to the slaughter of millions still in their mothers’ wombs. 

The message of Jesus was “repent and believe.” The mission He left to His followers was to “go and make disciples” (of Himself). The institution that Christ charged with doing His work was His church.

The reason for this is that, as Scripture teaches, Christ Himself is the head of the church. Thus His wisdom and Spirit lead His people “in the paths of righteousness.” Certainly this is not the case with the U.S. government.

I believe that most people who see such a benevolent role for the government have noble intentions. However, this is an extremely foolish position to take, especially for those who are Christians. (No one is “laying up treasure in heaven” by paying their taxes.) A secular government can never provide the real help for which those who have genuine needs are longing.

Without the wisdom, influence, and guidance of God and His Word, no amount of money given to the poor and needy will have the effect that it should. Literally trillions of U.S. dollars have been or will be spent by the federal government on welfare programs since they began early in the 20th century, with a very poor return on such a massive investment.

Also, once the government gets itself established in an additional part of our lives, another piece of our liberty goes out the window—perhaps never to return. This is another danger with government-run health care. John Adams said, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” I’m not quite this fatalistic when it comes to Obamacare, but certainly experience tells us that once we surrender such liberty to the government—with its power to tax, with the power to print money, with the power of the police, the military, the courts, congress, the treasury, and so on—it is nearly impossible to regain it.

“That government is best which governs least,” said Thomas Paine. I would add that, those individuals are behaving best who are freely giving of their own resources—not having it forcefully taken—to help those in need.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas