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):

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

My Guest Appearance on Silvio Canto's Talk Radio Show:

Click below to hear my interview with Texas talk-radio host Silvio Canto.

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Living With Liberalism: Gays, Graduations, and Swedish Meatheads

One doesn’t have to look far to witness the disaster that is modern liberalism. Sadly, leading the debauchery is the Boy Scouts of America. For over 100 years the Scouts have operated under the oath: “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” That oath has now been rendered meaningless and the Boy Scouts, as we knew it, is dead.

Yesterday, in historic infamy, over 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts national council voted (by a 61% to 39% margin) to allow openly homosexual boys into its ranks. As USA Today noted, “Since 1991 the Scouts have barred openly gay individuals from participating in Scouting because it was decided that being gay was incompatible with being ‘morally straight.’” So now, all of a sudden being “morally straight” doesn’t necessarily mean being sexually straight.

As is so typical with liberalism, whenever there’s a moral standard you want to change, just be persistent, loud, and threatening. It only took about 22 years with the Boy Scouts.

Persistent liberalism has worn down Dekalb County (in Georgia). For years now, atheist organizations have sought to get high school graduations out of area churches. In 2010, a federal judge ruled (based on a lawsuit brought against a Connecticut high school) that holding high school graduation ceremonies at a church was unconstitutional, and ordered the Enfield (CT) school board to find an alternative venue.

In recent years schools in Georgia have faced boycotts from atheist students and threats from atheist organizations for holding graduations in churches. This year, Dekalb County GA decided that the fight wasn’t worth it. They have decided to pull all graduations out of local churches. This is in spite of the fact that alternative venues are often not as convenient or as equipped to hold such events.

Then there is Sweden. For days now Sweden has suffered nighttime riots at the hands of unruly youths. The young thugs have set dozens of fires, targeting many cars and even a school. As reported by RT.com news, “Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence.”

Using very sound liberal logic, Swedish Democrats MP Kent Ekeroth stated, “In Sweden you’ve got welfare, access to the educational system – up to university level, you got access to public transport, libraries, healthcare – to everything. And still they feel that they [immigrants] need to riot through stones and Molotov cocktails. It’s ridiculous and a bad excuse.”

Apparently it has escaped many Swedes that, when you promote a culture of entitlement, those on the receiving end are likely to erupt when they don’t get everything they expect. Ingrid Carlqvist, editor in chief of the Swedish Dispatch International concluded, “The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people. The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”

In a moment of mental clarity, Carlqvist added, “The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem.” Yes it is! Carlqvist is correct, however, the environment that has produced this “money for nothing” culture is a result of the liberal policies favored by the Swedish people and their politicians. Thus, the Swedes bear the responsibility for creating such a liberal haven.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

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

Monday, May 20, 2013

What Gave Us Gosnell

The surest way for sin to prosper is for a culture to stop calling it sin. Given the rapidly decaying culture in the U.S., I could proceed in a myriad of directions following such a conclusion. However, in America the foremost example of the rotten fruit born of neglected sin is Kermit Gosnell.

In case you missed it—which is very likely, given the way the mainstream media had to be dragged kicking and screaming into covering Gosnell’s trial (after Gosnell’s guilt was pronounced, 56 days since the trial began, ABC News finally broke its silence!)—Gosnell was found guilty of, among hundreds of other things, first degree murder in the cases of three babies born alive after botched abortions.

If you’ve paid any attention at all, you know the gruesome details: “snipped” necks, frozen body parts, tiny arms and legs stored in jars, and so on. For decades, while earning millions of dollars, Gosnell and his associates butchered women and children alike.

No one should be surprised that the culture in America produced a Kermit Gosnell. After decades of lies from the abortion industry and its willing cohorts within the liberal media and Democrat party (along with “pro-choice” Republicans like Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania—where Gosnell performed his butchery), millions of Americans were led to believe that, after sperm fertilizes egg, what grows inside a woman’s body was not a life, but a “choice.” Such blatant disregard for sound morality, sound science, and plain common sense produced Gosnell’s “House of Horrors.”

After weeks of a trial that revealed a shocking callousness for both the born and the unborn and after 10 days of jury deliberations, during which speculation of the verdict abounded, there was plenty of time for all of America to see the truth when it comes to abortion and the ghastly practices that occur in abortion clinics. Yet following the announcement of Gosnell’s guilt, like a toddler with his fingers in his ears, abortion apologists such as The New York Times continued with their propaganda.

Before being caught, called out, and subsequently editing its online article, six times The Times referred to Gosnell’s young victims as “fetuses.” Early in the article The Times noted, “The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.”

In March of this year, a representative from Planned Parenthood (PP) Florida testified before the Florida legislature. The legislators were considering a bill that would require abortionists to provide medical care to a child born alive as a result of an abortion attempt. In a rare moment of candor from the culture of death (to borrow from Al Mohler), the PP representative endorsed the position under which Gosnell himself operated: the “right” to kill a baby born alive.

Stunned, Rep. Jim Boyd wanted clarification. “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” PP lobbyist Alisa Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

Writing for Salon.com early this year, pro-abortionist Mary Elizabeth Williams declared that it is time for the abortion industry and its supporters to stop playing games when it comes to life. “So what if abortion ends a life,” she concludes. She explains: “All life is not equal…a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”

Given such a climate, it is unsurprising that Gosnell’s attorney blamed the verdict on the “baby factor.” He did not elaborate as to his meaning, but given the perverted sense of life that many in our culture have developed, there is little surprise that the lawyer for an abortionist would choose to slander the use of the word “baby” when it comes not only to describing the unborn, but even children outside the womb.

Words matter. In a recent interview for The Atlantic, psychotherapist Gary Greenberg notes the many problems with modern psychiatry. Mostly he points out how, through the very political and subjective Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, modern psychiatry has attempted to gain medical relevance. In this process, Greenberg notes we have eliminated the moral aspect behind certain behaviors. He rightly concludes, “This society is very wary of using the term ‘evil.’” Not being able to call evil “evil” is how we end up with Kermit Gosnell.

Also, in this case (as with every such abortion) distance (mere inches) matters. As pointed out on The Hill, “The murder case against Gosnell rests entirely on the location of the victim (in inches, mind you) at the time of death, not in the fact that the victim was killed. The main difference between Gosnell and other abortion doctors is that he couldn’t get the job done before the baby came out. He tried doing it like his peers at Planned Parenthood—the industry leader which is worthy of half a billion dollars annually in tax-payer funds.”

Further illustrating America’s moral decay, when it comes to protecting children who survive an abortion, no less than the man most recently elected (twice!) President of the U.S., Barack Hussein Obama himself, advocated a position that differs little from Gosnell’s. As World Net Daily put it, “Fundamental to Gosnell’s argument was that severing the spinal cord of a baby who survived an abortion was not infanticide.”

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). Then state senator Obama voted against the bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

In 2003, even after a “neutrality clause” was added to the Illinois bill that made it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA that unanimously passed both houses of the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by President Bush, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

What can one conclude about a nation that elects such a man its leader? For one thing, as I already noted, the fact that a Kermit Gosnell exists should come as no surprise to any American. Secondly, until this nation sees abortion for what it really is, the next Kermit Gosnell is just around the corner.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Boycott Mike Lupica?

Ah yes, where better to get insightful and intelligent social commentary than from George Costanza’s favorite sports writer. ESPN’s Mike Lupica just couldn’t help himself when it came to the recent NRA convention in Houston. In his column yesterday  he managed to insult not only NRA members, Sarah Palin, and Wayne LaPierre, but millions of gun-loving Americans as well.

Sounding as if he were describing himself, Lupica writes that the NRA convention attendees are “mean, dumb” and “angry.” He painted those who cheered the comments of Sarah Palin as “phonies” and said that all Palin did was “turn herself out for the craziest and creepiest gun lovers on the planet.”
Lupica assailed Governor Palin’s supposed “spectacular lack of talent [that] has made her virtually unemployable on television.” He attacked LaPierre as “nothing more than a cheap, dangerous demagogue, constantly trying to act as if he and an association that represents an amazingly small percentage of gun owners in this country are the ones who represent the heart and soul of America…LaPierre isn’t a patriot, he’s a pimp.”
Lost in his own hypocrisy, Lupica laments the “politicizing” of recent American tragedies in Boston and Newtown. Yet in mid-January of this year, a Lupica piece urging action on gun-control legislation contained, in the title of the piece no-less, the phrase “for the families of Newtown, before the moment is lost.”
At the top of the fold on Drudge today is a headline pondering whether Rush Limbaugh is going to depart WABC. Much of the speculation about Rush’s future is due to an incident last year where he, on air, called Sandra Fluke a “slut” because of her efforts speaking before the U.S. Congress in favor of mandated health coverage for birth control.
The liberal media went nuts and pressed advertisers to drop his show. According to the New York Daily News (where Lupica is also employed), several hundred—including Sears, Geico, John Deere, Netflix, and Capital One—complied. Rush’s people claim that the advertisers that left were replaced. Nevertheless, there is some tension here.
Now here’s the real question. Will advertisers for the sporting giant that is ESPN get the same kind of pressure over Lupica’s comments—which insult millions—as did Rush’s advertisers? Will there be calls for ESPN to fire Lupica?
Is calling someone a slut worse than calling them “mean, dumb, phony pimps?” I mean, how much difference is there between a slut and a pimp? I guess the liberal media will let us know.
(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Radical Christianity vs. Radical Islam

Finally, Bill Maher got something right. Following the Boston bombings, Maher responded to Brian Levy, the director of the Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino (a great example of needed reforms in public higher education), “[T]here's only one faith, for example, that kills you or wants to kill you if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you or wants to kill you if you renounce the faith.”

There you have it. Even a flaming atheist can recognize the difference between a religion of peace and one full of bloodlust. The Tsarnaevs are just the most recent example of the tragic bitter fruit produced by radical Islamists. To further Maher’s point, consider and contrast the efforts of radical Islamists with those of radical Christians.

Just what is a “radical Christian”? Some might call them (with apologies to DC Talk) “Jesus Freaks.” Examples are all around us and most are virtually unknown outside of their home towns (mainly because they don’t make the news by killing other people). They plant churches, feed the poor, heal the sick; they open orphanages and pregnancy resource centers; they visit prisoners and deliver the oppressed; in other words, they have sold themselves out to be the hands and feet of the One they worship.

Some popular examples would include men like the late Jim Elliot, who served and evangelized the Quechua Indians, even though it cost him his life. Countless Christians have forsaken the comforts of Western civilization to go and fulfill the call of Christ. In other words, Christianity exports its radicals to bring life and hope, while much of Islam does so to bring death and despair.

Radical Christian and Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller and his wife Linda started an organization “that has helped build or repair more than 600,000 houses and served more than 3 million people around the world.” The organization began in 1968, and the Fullers moved to Mbandaka, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) in 1973 to spread their mission of affordable housing to developing countries.

Meanwhile, Muslims in Pakistan recently burned nearly 200 Christian homes over the alleged blasphemy against Muhammad by a Christian sanitation worker. Coptic Christians continue to suffer under the “reforms” taking place in Egypt. The Coptic minority have been murdered and seen their homes, businesses, and churches looted and burned.

Radical Christians build hospitals. Radical Muslims seek to fill them up. Christians have led the world in caring for the sick and dying among us. As Virginia Health Information notes, “Some of the earliest hospitals existed in ancient Rome in 100 BC as important centers for the emergency care of sick and wounded soldiers. With the spread of Christianity, hospitals grew as part of the church's mission and became part of the community as they tended to health care not only for soldiers but also for all who needed it.”

The first hospital in North America, the Hospital de Jesus Nazareno, was founded by Cort├ęs. The first hospital in the U.S, Pennsylvania Hospital, was founded by a Quaker, Dr. Thomas Bond (with the aid of Benjamin Franklin). The Catholic Church alone operates over 1,100 hospitals and long-term health care facilities in the U.S. What’s more, a 2010 study revealed that Christian hospitals in the U.S. outperform all others.

Radical Christians build schools. The world’s first university, birthed in 1088, was The University of Bologna in Italy. It was founded to teach canon (church) law. The second oldest university, The University of Paris, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre-Dame and soon became a great center for Christian orthodox studies. Dr. Alvin J. Schmidt, in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization, points out that every college established in colonial America, except the University of Pennsylvania, was founded by some denomination of Christianity. He adds that, preceding the Civil War, 92 percent of the 182 colleges and universities in the U.S. were established by some branch of the church.

Radical Muslims attack young girls who merely want an education. In 2012 Taliban forces in Afghanistan were responsible for what was described as “an intentional act to poison schoolgirls.” More than 150 girls in northeastern Afghanistan suffered in the attack. “Every day [in fact, just the other day], you hear that somebody's thrown acid at a girl's face ... or they poison their water,” bemoaned the founder of a girls school outside Kabul.

According to the U.N., there were nearly 200 attacks on schools and hospitals in Afghanistan in 2011. In addition, radical Islamists also attack administrators who don’t conform to their ideas of what constitutes a proper education. According to Reuters, “Radical Muslims burst into a Tunisian school…and assaulted [nearly killing] its chief after he barred entry to a teenage girl wearing a niqab.”

Car bombs detonated by Muslim radicals have killed dozens in Somalia and Nigeria this year alone. Just last month, Muslim suicide bombers in Pakistan and Syria killed well over 100 people. Whether it’s bombing, burning, beheading, hacking, poisoning, or shooting, the list of Muslim violence is long and obscene.

Of course, the proper Christian response to such violence is never revenge. (However, justice is another matter.) As we look to be salt and light to those outside of Christianity—whether they be violent, mocking, or merely apathetic—we must never forget that Christ came, not to destroy lives, but to save them. This is why, when it comes to comparing radical Christians to radical Islamists, there is no comparison.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World