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):

Saturday, January 31, 2015

Richard Sherman, Be There For Your Son: Marry His Mom

I don’t like the two weeks between the end of the NFL conference championship games and the Super Bowl. Two weeks is far too long for today’s sports media to keep my attention while talking about only two teams. In this case, it’s two teams about which I couldn’t care less. If only they both could lose.

Given this much time to cover one sporting event, the media coverage frequently devolves into witless trivial minutia about things like who can make the best crude joke while talking about deflated footballs, or what line will Marshawn Lynch next use when he doesn’t talk to the media. Nevertheless, during this football purgatory, while driving, I still surf by the sports talk programs on the radio.

It seems that the impending birth of the Seattle Seahawks’ 26-year-old super-star defensive back, Richard Sherman’s, first child has become a hot topic, even with the lame-stream media. No, the liberals that dominate both the sports media and the lame-stream media haven’t suddenly discovered a special affinity for the unborn. They’re enamored with the possible dilemma that Sherman could face if the mother of his son goes into labor on Super Bowl Sunday.

If the child decides to enter the world on the day of the biggest sporting event in America, should Sherman be there for the birth of his first child, or should he play in the Super Bowl? Sherman isn’t saying what he would do, and thus the media becomes even more enamored, and the story goes on.

The Washington Post concludes, “For many readers, this will probably seem like a no-brainer: You go and be by the new mother’s side. In Sherman’s case, he already played in, and won, a Super Bowl just last year, so shouldn’t the birth of his first child take precedence?” The Post even provides a poll and asks their readers to weigh in. In other words, the media is implying and even encouraging the notion that Sherman should “be there for his wife girlfriend and son.”

What is virtually ignored by the media is the fact that Sherman and the mother of his child, Ashley Moss, are not married. And why shouldn’t it be ignored? As has been pointed out ad-nauseam, children born out of wedlock in this country are now, tragically, quite the norm. Moss is described as Sherman’s “girlfriend” in every article on the matter, with no mention (that I could find) of this being any problem at all.

Of course, with its pervasive support of the “right” to kill children in the womb at virtually any stage of pregnancy, the perverse redefinition of marriage, sexual immorality of every sort imaginable, and a massive welfare state, it is little surprise that the liberal-dominated media would not spill one drop of ink lamenting the relationship status of Sherman and Moss.

Remember how much ink was spilled last year over the Ray Rice fiasco? Even in that terrible situation, where there were calls for Roger Goodell to resign as commissioner, and there was widespread talk of a domestic violence problem in the NFL (which was completely debunked, but nevertheless has spawned a Super Bowl ad on the matter), the liberal media could not bring itself to discuss the virtues of marriage. And, for the most part, they totally ignored the fact that after their terrible scene at a New Jersey casino, Rice and his then fiancée, Janay Palmer, married and became born-again Christians.

During one of the media days leading up to the Super Bowl, Sherman discussed how the impending birth of his son is giving him extra motivation to do well on the field. “It's someone that actually depends on you for everyday living,” Sherman said. “Everything they do is dependent on you and how you provide and how successful you are. As a parent, you want to set a great example for them, so I guess, to a degree, a lot of things are riding on it.”

At least Sherman’s Stanford education has allowed him to state the obvious. Yes, your children are dependent on you in nearly every way (which is especially the case in the womb—a fact that, despite their intellectual claims, has escaped most liberals). And yes, we need to work hard to provide for them (how “capitalist” of Sherman!). But that is FAR from all that is necessary for proper child rearing.

The absolute best thing Sherman and Moss can do for their child is to marry, be a loving and committed couple, and remain such throughout their lives. No amount of money can ever buy or replace the effect of such a relationship. Again, after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is that between husband and wife.

Sherman need look no further than his teammate Marshawn Lynch for evidence of this. Lynch, the surly Seattle running back, grew up on the mean and dangerous streets of Oakland, California, raised only by his single mother, Delisa. As Larry Elder recently noted, when asked why he finds it difficult to “trust” people, Lynch recalls his absent father. Lynch said that, his mother would take him to his dad’s house, “And when I get there, my dad like, ‘Oh, OK, I be right back,’ and then you don't see this guy for like, two days or something. And then after a while you, like, sh--, you build up numb feelings to that. So you start to expect the worst out of people.”

In spite of the deliberate ignorance, or downright deceit, of those on the left, there is nothing more important for the health and well-being of a child than the health and the well-being of the relationship that exists with the child’s mom and dad. So, to Mr. Sherman I say, if you want to “be there for your son,” marry, love, and remain married and faithful “until death do you part” to your son’s mother.

(See a version of this on American Thinker's blog.)

Update: Just to clarify, married or not, if Moss goes into labor on Sunday, if I were Sherman, I would be suited up and on the field. 

Copyright 2015, 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

Sunday, January 25, 2015

The Truth is Always "Offensive"

When Jesus stood before Pilate, just prior to going to His execution, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” After some discussion, Pilate concluded, “You are a king, then!” Jesus replied, “You are right in saying that I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Sounding much like a modern-day graduate of Harvard’s divinity school, or the Dean for Religious Life at Stanford University (who both probably have about the same regard for Christ as did Pilate), Pilate concluded his exchange with Jesus by asking, “What is truth?” And just as one would expect from someone so blind to the truth, Pilate and the crowd sent the most innocent man the world has ever known to his excruciating death.

When His disciple Thomas asked, “how can we know the way?” Jesus answered him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The clearest picture and purveyor of truth in the history of the universe is Jesus Christ. Thus, those who stand opposed to Him often go to great lengths in their attempts to silence His message and His messengers. Whether the arenas of Rome, the pitch-soaked flaming pyres throughout Europe, the savage altars of the Aztecs and Iroquois, the brutal prisons in communist China, Russia and North Korea, or the Islamic swords and machine-guns in the Middle East and Africa, for two millennia, millions of Christians have suffered, many “even unto death,” for their faith in Jesus and His message.

Apologist Greg Koukl, writing about the martyrdom of Polycarp, a second century disciple of the Apostle John and bishop of Smyrna, sums up well how so many Christians have been able to happily endure their persecution. Koukl asks, “How could Polycarp go to his redemption with eagerness?” The answer: “Because he understood the truth. And the truth changed everything.”

Indeed, in spite of the vain yammerings of Barack Obama and his liberal lackeys, the only way to bring real, lasting, and positive change to individuals or a culture is with the power of Christ. This is a truth—The Truth—that many, in spite of how they paint themselves, simply cannot “tolerate.”

If unbelieving liberals, Islamists, et al, understand anything, they understand this: their way and The Way are in direct opposition. In spite of the foolish attempts of some who call themselves Christians, there is no reconciling the way of the Cross with that of Muhammad, Buddha, liberalism, secularism, or any other religion contrived by man. This is precisely why those deceived find Jesus so “offensive.”

As a man who has found the cure for a terrible disease, true followers of Christ tell the truth with courage, conviction, and love. They minister to the sick, poor, hungry, and broken. They build churches, schools, hospitals, and orphanages. In order to further engage the world and spread the truth, Christians are involved in politics, science, industry, education, entertainment, and even the military. They also peacefully, but strongly, stand up to the lies of liberalism, Islam, and the like. This is precisely why such Christians are found to be so “offensive.”

Opponents of the truth (whose side we were all on at one time or another) find themselves in what C.S. Lewis describes as a “terrible fix.” They have made themselves enemies of the one thing which they cannot stand to be with, which is also the one thing which they cannot really do without. As Lewis puts it, the Author of truth “is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies.”

Those who remain His enemies are as numerous, devoted, and angry now as they have ever been. Militant Islamists, communists, humanists, atheists, and so on, are waging a vengeful war against all things Christian. The global persecution of Christians is at historic levels. As Christians (along with others) are being killed or jailed in the eastern world, their property and their careers are being threatened in the west.

I often thank God that I don’t live in a part of the world where it’s dangerous (meaning that your life is threatened) to be a Christian. However, just as Islam for centuries has known the “danger” that Christianity presents to followers of Muhammad, how long before those committed to the Godless humanist/secularist worldview in the west decide that lawsuits and other such legal actions against the “offensive” are simply not enough? After all, they’ve had plenty of practice killing the most vulnerable among us—those in the womb.

It’s not as if Jesus and His Apostles failed to warn us. Jesus said that because of Him, we would be hated. The “City of God” will always be despised by “The City of Man.” Nevertheless, Paul teaches us to bless those who persecute us and never to “repay anyone evil with evil.”

Jesus also told us never to fear those who can only “kill the body and after that can do no more.” As the beheadings, massacres, kidnappings, and rapes continue in the Middle East and Africa, as the forced abortions continue in China, as the faithful continue to endure imprisonment and execution in North Korea, and as Europe and North America continue to seek to destroy the biblical family model through the promotion of abortion, homosexuality, marriage perversions, and the welfare state, may we never forget that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

“Truth is incontrovertible,” wrote Winston Churchill. “Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is.” And it will be there for all time and beyond time. In spite of all our efforts, we will all ultimately answer to the truth—better to do so in this world than the next.

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, 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

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

What's Wrong With Incest? (Redux)

So people are "aghast" that an 18-year-old young woman from the Great Lakes region of the U.S. is planning to "marry" her 39-year-old biological father and move to New Jersey. (The move to New Jersey, evidently, is because the Garden State doesn't criminalize incest between consenting, mentally capable adults. How "progressive" of them.)

The young woman grew up not knowing her father, losing touch with him around age five, and when she turned 17, found him--where else--on Facebook. They started chatting. She found out they had lots in common (after all, he is her dad), and that he was "so good-looking!"

As bizarre as all of this is, the real story here is not that a young lady has decided to "marry" her biological father. The real story is the reaction of liberals who have been so eager to redefine marriage as it has been known for millennia. Redefine in a manner that legitimizes homosexuality, that is. Incest, well that is another matter altogether.

Jezebel magazine is an excellent case in point. (In case you're (blissfully--trust me) unaware, Jezebel (true to the biblical namesake), "is a [liberal] gossip rag run by snarling, hypocritical [feminazi] shrews.") Their piece on this matter (I won't link to it.) is entitled, "This Interview With a Woman Dating Her Father Will Haunt You Forever."

"Incest is a known taboo, and is illegal in every state in some form or another," the author of the Jezebel piece notes. Replace "Incest" with "Homosexuality" and you have a sentence that, for over two hundred years, almost no serious person in this country would have batted an eye at.

As the interview part of the article begins, the author ominously declares, "I'll warn you now: it's difficult to read her description of her childhood relationship with her father, knowing that they're dating now." As "difficult" as reading or hearing about men having sex with men?! Even more telling are the comments after the piece. 

"This is NOT ok," notes one. "I'd really like to hear how anyone thinks this is okay," asks another. It's the "sickest thing imaginable," says another. Others use words like "backwards" and "objectively wrong." Remember, by and large almost everyone you would read on the site--from the author to nearly everyone who comments--are RAGING liberals, who viciously support everything homosexual, including same-sex marriage.

"This is just wrong," wrote another, adding that "surely the NJ legislation (sic) can change this?!" GASP!--You mean have the government in the bedrooms of consenting adults?! What in the world has become of the state of liberalism today?!

The "internet is aghast" notes an Atlanta Journal-Constitution blogger. Why? Upon what moral standard are they relying? If same-sex marriage is not a "bad thing," then, as I've asked before, what's wrong with incest?

As I noted then, apparently it continues to escape most, if not all, on the left, that eventually one must “discriminate” when it comes to defining marriage [as well as deciding what is "taboo"]. I suppose, at least at this point anyway, that incest is a line too far for many liberals. But why? Why the moral outrage over incest? What’s wrong with incest? Who or what says that incest is wrong? What moral code are liberals using to condemn incest?

Apparently it also escapes most liberals that, whether people realize it or not, our objections to incest almost exclusively stem from a biblical admonition against it. Why else oppose it? Because of the likely genetic harm faced by children produced from such relationships? Since when does the left concern itself with the unborn? After all, we all know well their solution to that.

Copyright 2015, 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, January 19, 2015

Same-Sex “Marriage:” The Way Around the Death Tax

Surprise! President Obama wants to raise taxes. In addition to other increases, as part of his new budget, President Obama wants to raise the estate tax (aka the “death tax”). Americans for Tax Reform notes that the increase would be from 40% to nearly 60%. This is about a 50% increase. However, as I have noted in the past, all property left to a spouse is exempt from the estate tax.

With the perverse redefinition of marriage that liberals across the U.S. have pushed on the country—which, after the Supreme Court rules on the matter, may soon give us same-sex “marriage” as the law of the land—some interesting tax scenarios may become available for all who are willing to take advantage.

Again, as the link above indicates, I’ve already pointed all of this out, but since Obama has put the estate tax in the headlines, my “delicious scenario” deserves a rehashing:

Once the redefining of marriage is taken to its logical conclusion—unless, of course, the left wants to “discriminate” and limit the definition of “marriage”—and polygamous and incestuous relationships are given the legal protection of marriage, then a wealthy small business owner or farmer, nearing the end of his life, will be able to “marry” his son or daughter (or both!) (no matter if either party is already married) for no other reason than to avoid paying additional federal taxes. Thank you, Justice Kennedy!

For conservatives, and other Americans still capable of actually feeling shame, there will be no shame or stigma in participating in such marriages, because the relationships will have absolutely nothing to do with sex and are all about “love” (loving to stick it to the feds, that is), and “love is love,” right libs?

For liberals, whether such relationships are sexual should have no bearing. I mean, what protest can a true liberal raise against any kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults? Upon what moral standard would they rely? After all, we would not want to “demean” a couple whose “moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.”

Also, there would be no violation of God’s law either, because as anyone who truthfully understands Scripture knows, marriage can only exist as union of one man and one woman. Thus, all that would be occurring is taking legal advantage of the folly produced by liberal logic. I suppose liberals could always change their “marriage” laws and require that same-sex “marriages” occur only with those actually engaging in homosexual activity, but that would require the government to enter the bedroom, and we know liberals don’t want that! (How wickedly ironic would that be? We go from laws against sodomy to those requiring it!)

Copyright 2015, 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

Sunday, January 11, 2015

The Cost of Crossing the Devoted

I’m under no illusions that the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo was a frequent critic of Islam out of some noble desire to point people to the truth. The weekly publication recently attacked by Islamic terrorists is doggedly left-wing and anti-religious, targeting Judaism, Christianity, along with Islam. Nevertheless, when it comes to “infidels,” Islamic terrorists give no credit for equal-opportunity satirists.

In other words, it makes no difference if you’re an irreverent French cartoonist, a young Pakistani student, Nigerian villagers, or an Iraqi Christian child who simply wants to “love Jesus,” your fate is the same. Yet, not all under the wicked boot of Islam suffer death; some are only kidnapped and made sex slaves, while others, like liberals in Saudi Arabia, are imprisoned and flogged.

In what some are describing as a stunning development, after the Paris attacks, USA Today published an op-ed from the “radical” Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary. Though many blasted USA Today for allowing Choudary space to spew his terrorism apologetic screed, what is most surprising is that USA Today would allow itself to be a voice in revealing the true nature of Islam.

Choudary began, “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone.” He later added, “Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime [dishonoring the Prophet Muhammad] under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.’”

Contrast such vengeance with the message of Christianity, where Jesus instructs His followers to “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matt. 5:44);” and where the Apostle Peter instructs, “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you might inherit a blessing (1 Peter. 3:9).”

In spite of this gross disparity, many liberals, whether in Europe or the U.S., in order to show they are sufficiently “tolerant,” don’t treat Islam as if it were on equal footing with all other religions; they elevate it to a special class. Many have been sounding the alarm for years on the “no-go zones” that continue to pop-up throughout Europe.

There are hundreds of these no-go zones in Europe, with France alone containing over 700. “No-go” essentially means, if you’re not Muslim, you are not welcome, and thus, you’d better stay away. This applies not only to ordinary citizens, but to police, fire-fighters, and other such officials. Thus, these no-go zones have become places where nations have ceded sovereignty to Muslim rule.

Signs are hung that read, “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone, Islamic rules enforced.” Of course, Sharia law can mean “honor” killings (murder), forced marriages, polygamy, and so on. In many of the no-go zones, there is also rampant gang activity, drug trafficking, and organized crime. Much of this activity goes unreported or is ignored by authorities. Worse, as France reveals, jihad is allowed to prosper, and the scourge of liberalism is again revealed for what it is: a tragic form of quackery that enables the likes of a cancer such as Islamic jihad.

Worse still, some are reporting that similar no-go zones are on the way to the U.S, if they’re not already here. Will American liberals follow the lead of the European quacks and tell us that in the name of “tolerance,” this is their “right?” After all, who are we to judge another culture? What harm can come to us if we simply live and let live?

This is how it began with homosexuality and same-sex "marriage." First we were told that homosexuality was normal and did not need treatment. Thus, homosexual behavior did not need to be criminalized. In other words, we must be “tolerant,” you know, “live and let live.” Soon, we were told that homosexuals were being “discriminated” against and needed the protection of the law. Once this occurred, homosexual relationships began to get attention. Homosexuals sought and won the “right” to adopt. Thus, children became pawns and victims in the race to normalize homosexuality.

Of course, if homosexuals can be parents, then they should be able to “marry,” and here we are. But even the perverse notion of allowing homosexuals to “marry” is not enough. We must all—individuals, businesses, schools, churches, and the like—be forced to “submit” to the idea of homosexuality as normal, acceptable behavior, and same-sex "marriage."

The most recent case in point is that of former Atlanta Fire Chief, Kelvin Cochran. Mr. Cochran was suspended and just recently fired for self-publishing a book a little over a year ago that tells the truth on homosexuality. Cochran took less than a half-page to say that homosexuality, along with other sexual sins, is “unclean,” “vile,” “vulgar,” and dishonors God.

And as was the case with the French cartoonists, Cochran’s words could not go unanswered. He struck at the heart of one of the tenets of liberalism, and thus, there had to be consequences. It didn't cost him his life, but like the bakers, florists, and photographers who also recently ran afoul of the gay mafia, it cost him his livelihood. And thus we see, whether radical Islam or radical liberalism, there is a high cost to crossing the devoted.

Copyright 2015, 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