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, October 16, 2014

Liberals Wage War on the Truth

(A version of this appeared earlier here as "The Devil and the Democratic Party." This version also appears on American Thinker.)

When it comes to political “wars,” in spite of the meme perpetuated by most liberals, no one is more hawkish than modern liberals and the political party that they own, the Democrat Party. By and large since the 1960s, their efforts are summed up by one succinct and extremely accurate appellation: a war on the truth.

In the history of our nation, only the pro-slavery Democrats of the 19th century rival the political deception employed by today’s liberals that lead the modern Democrat Party. Support of everything from abortion, to gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, a redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, and an enslaving welfare state have made today’s Democrat Party little more than a modern-day Mephistopheles. Instead of magic to lure their Faustian targets, today’s Democrats employ, among other things, bribery, class warfare, fear, greed, lust, propaganda, scientism, vengeance, and violence.

This is really unsurprising. When your politics regularly conflict with absolute truth, constant deception is required. The evidence is, of course, all around us. This is especially the case given that we are in the midst of another election season. Take note of the political ads run by Democrats. How long before we get to meet the next Julia or Pajama Boy? How many times will we get to hear about, if elected, what Democrats will do in order to give out more goodies from the government? Where will the next fraudulent statistics in the “War on Women” originate?

How much “linguistic limbo” will Democrats perform in order blandly to describe their embracing of the “right” to kill children in the womb? (Or they simply video their abortions and tell us that everything is “super great!”) What deceit will liberals use to explain or embrace the fiscal and medical disaster that is Obamacare? How many times will we get to hear the phrase “marriage equality” (knowing full well that the liberal position on marriage also “discriminates”)?

How far away will Democrats attempt to run from what they really are in order to keep themselves in power? Liberals all over the country are running from Obama and their own party in an attempt to win elections. As most who are following this election season know well, Democrats are going so far as to avoid the label “Democrat” or even admit that they voted for Obama.

In Kansas, Greg Orman is a Democrat running as an Independent. He has shamelessly refused to say with which party he would caucus if elected. “Truth makes the Devil blush,” wrote English historian Thomas Fuller. As liberalism has created a culture that is nearly bereft of shame, today’s Democrats rarely blush, even as they mock their wheelchair-bound opponents. This usually happens only when someone becomes a political liability (as did the Democrat candidate that Orman replaced) and not because some proper moral standard has been violated.

If Orman does win, as the Wall Street Journal notes, he will most certainly owe his election to Washington Democrats. Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes squirmed like Jim Carrey in “Liar Liar” as she attempted to avoid revealing to the Louisville Courier-Journal editorial board whether she voted for Obama in the last presidential election. Mary Landrieu and Michelle Nunn have played similar games as they try to win U.S. Senate seats in conservative states.

Given how far our culture has fallen morally, getting elected in the United States these days is much more challenging when you are accountable to absolute truths. As I noted earlier this year, because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular, liberals today generally have an easier time “playing politics” than conservatives—especially Christian conservatives.

When asked recently how to break the stalemate in the culture war that divides American conservatives and liberals, Catholic scholar George Weigel replied, “When you have a gnostic philosophy that ignores the very fabric of reality—and it is wed to a coercive state—it’s hard to know where to go.”

Ignoring “the very fabric of reality” is a frequent practice of modern liberals. Liberalism is so far removed from truth and reality that many liberals today can’t even acknowledge explicit evil when confronted with it. Ben Affleck has plenty of company among his fellow leftists when it comes to denying the rotten fruit of Islam. As the recent exchange with fellow liberal Bill Maher illustrated, many American liberals, in the name of the supreme virtue of liberalism—tolerance—will eagerly and angrily deny lesser virtues of their “faith.”

“Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions,” wrote G.K. Chesterton. A “man without convictions” who frequently “ignores the very fabric of reality” and who is enthusiastically “wed to a coercive state” is an apt description of modern liberals, but not perfect. In spite of what they themselves might think—lost in their fallacy that is today’s tolerance—liberals are not completely tolerant, and thus not devoid of convictions.

The convictions of modern liberalism are numerous and growing: Abortion, homosexuality, hook-ups, same-sex marriage, gender confusion, man-made global warming, universal healthcare, income redistribution, and whatever is the next perversion or deceit that will strike at the heart of biblical truths.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” helped launch the American Revolution. If America is to remain, we need a spiritual revolution bringing us back to those truths that were once so “self-evident.”

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


  1. You're sad, Trevor. Funny sometimes, but sad for the most part. After all of your repeated, consistently vile smears against liberals, progresisves, and the democrat party, the sad truth is if President Obama were the only man running on the next presidential ballot, more conservatives and republicans would vote for him than progressives and democrats.

    I will agree with one general point you have made. Dishonesty is a sin. Our political system is rife with dishonesty, and it exists on BOTH sides of the aisle. This dishonesty stems from the corrupting effect of too much money in politics. That last part I fully expect you to disagree with, but it is true nonetheless.

    To seed the future of our political system with MORE truth, MORE fidelity, and MORE honesty, I suggest we implement some things now that will pay off in the future.

    (1) Allow Supreme Court justices to have a hand in picking their own replacements. In this scenario, a retiring justice would be able to pick his or her own replacement from a large pool of previously nominated and confirmed candidates who until called upon would continue in their current career positions. These nominees would remain in the pool until such time as they are selected to a seat on the bench or they voluntarily remove their name from the list. Thus the pool would provide a wide range of candidates for any Justice to select from regardless of which party controls the White House. This would alleviate unnecessary partisan fights over SC nominees that distract our nation from more significant strategic considerations which should drive elections.

    (2) Reform the electoral process so that congressional districts in every state are a uniform geometric shape, for example rectangular or octagonal. Since geometric shapes are intrinsically non-partisan, this would largely eliminate the corrupting influence of gerrymandering. Adherence to standardized geometric shapes would also allow mathematical computer programs to apportion the districts to ensure every district has approximately the same number of constituents.

    (3) In the interest of equal representation, standardize voting regulations in every state so that the number of days allocated for voting and accepted forms of ID do not vary from state to state. These variations could penalize migrant citizens who move often in pursuit of employment.

    (4)Reconsider campaign finance reform as per McCain Feingold. There's an old saying that money is the root of all evil, and our political system is baptized in it. Conservatives disingenuously call this free speech, but the reality is it largely PREVENTS free speech when money (and the political interests behind that money) can literally shut out the voices of the poor by buying up ALL the advertisement time on common media outlets in a free market system. This effectively "prices out" a majority of the electorate from the venue of free speech. This cripples the very idea of free speech and healthy public discourse.

    (5) After item number 3 is fully implemented, return to a system whereby federal senators are appointed by state legislatures. A vote within the state legislature would be held and the top two candidates with the most votes would be selected as senators. What would this do? It would (A) generally eliminate the politics of personal destruction and (B) eliminate the pervasive corruption of the current campaign finance system.

    (6) Similar to item number 5, my suggestion is the party in control of the US Congress would select a president and vice president from within it's own caucus.

    (7) Now you make some suggestions, Trevor. Personally I'm tired of hearing you smear, insult, and kvetch (yiddish for chronic complaints) against one political group only. That predictable behavior of yours is almost Nazi in it's fundamental character. Try to see beyond the political left and the right. Be a part of the mission to restore instead of the agenda to divide.

  2. Oops, I think I meant to say "rectangular and hexagonal" for congressional shapes. The hexagonal shape of a honeycomb in a beehive is ideal because it tiles perfectly.

  3. I'm glad to see you incorporating some sound geometry in our electoral process. :) Some of the ideas you mention are not bad, however I believe some would place too much power in the hands of the federal government.

    I wholeheartedly agree with #5. Be careful, your'e sounding like a conservative!

  4. I suppose we all have some conservative ideas. Politically speaking, most people are not perfectly red nor blue, but mishmash purple. Unfortunately I do not see that concept reflected in the majority of your blog posts.

    Regarding items (5) and (3), let's call that not conservative or progressive poltics, not republican nor democrat, but Euclidean politics.

    Please elaborate on which idea you think puts too much power in the hands of the federal government.

    Do you mean allowing SC Justices to have a hand in selecting their own replacements from a pool of previously nominated and approved candidates? This generally preserves the current system, while adding the valuable wisdom of the retiring justice. We respect their opinions as the highest authority on constitutional matters, therefore it only makes sense that we would value their input in this process. The big gain is it eliminates needless partisan fights over nominees because the candidate would not be nominated DIRECTLY to a seat.

    Or... is your concern rooted in the possibility that we would revert to a system whereby only the US congress would vote to select a president? As congress is made up of individuals who each represent their states, this should still fall under the purview of a decision among the states in a republic.

    The truth is this actually puts more power into the hands of the public, -providing that we trust our electoral system to give us candidates who will represent the will of the people as Congressmen.

    The common problems with popular elections for president are (1) the politics of personal destruction (which is typically used to prune away our best and brightest candidates during the primaries -leaving us with a choice between two lousy candidates *who are both bought and paid for* in the general election); and (2) far too much money in the political system (which has undermined the very concept of popular democracy).

    I have often heard conservatives suggest that only land owners (or at least people who actually PAY taxes) should be able to vote. In the scenario above, we can assume that notion would be much closer to truth for selection of the president.

    As an example of the politics of personal destruction, it is my opinion that President John F. Kennedy could not be elected in todays system because of the pruning effect of personal destruction during primary elections. My opinion is we suffer under poor leadership because the best and brightest political minds are stolen from us in this corrupt process. Recent victims of this phenomena include Herman Cain, John Edwards, and David Petraeus. It was also used to great effect to damage Bill Clinton after he became president.

    Smoke on that and get back to me.