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, February 27, 2016

Should Cruz/Rubio Go Third Party? (Updated)

Many conservatives (and republicans alike) feared that a Trump candidacy for the GOP nomination for U.S. President would lead to a third party run. What was once feared may now give rise to hope. A third-party run may now be the best option for American conservatives. (I'm far from alone that this may be a real viable option for U.S. conservatives.)

With Trump looking more and more like the GOP nominee, and with Christian conservatives like myself aghast at the option of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton for U.S. President, a Ted Cruz/Marco Rubio ticket sounds very appealing. It would not matter to me which one was at the top of the ticket.

A Cruz/Rubio ticket would have severe political ramifications. First of all, with Cruz/Rubio taking on both Trump and Clinton, we would likely see no candidate receive the necessary 270 electoral votes to become U.S. President. Thus, for the first time since the Presidential election of 1824, the U.S. House of Representatives would choose our President.

In 1824, despite finishing behind Andrew Jackson in both electoral votes and popular vote, John Quincy Adams became the sixth President of the United States. With the Democratic-Republican Party--then the only national political organization in the U.S.--unable to choose a single candidate, four separate candidates for U.S. President emerged.

With 131 electoral votes necessary to win, Jackson won 41% of the popular vote and 99 electoral votes. Adams won 31% of the popular vote and 84 electoral votes. Henry Clay from Kentucky won 13% of the popular vote and 37 electoral votes, and for William H. Crawford from Georgia it was 11% of the popular vote and 41 electoral votes.

Although it had no impact on the results of the election, this was the first U.S. Presidential election where the popular vote was counted. However, at this time, not every state selected their Presidential electors by popular vote. Some states still had their legislators choose their Presidential electors.

As one would expect (as most of us have witnessed in our time (Bush v. Gore)), Jackson and his supporters were very bitter at the outcome. The Jackson faction would become the Democrat Party. (Like Rush Limbaugh, I don't use the other moniker for the modern political party dominated by today's perverse liberalism.) The Adams/Clay faction would become the Whig Party. The Whig Party would fall apart over the issue of slavery and the anti-slavery Republican Party would rise in its place and become the chief opposition to the Democrat Party.

As slavery divided the U.S. in the 19th century, the modern moral issues facing America today have created a split in the U.S. unseen since the early to mid-1800s. Given the importance placed on today's moral issues--especially when it comes to issues important to the family, such as abortion and marriage--many Christian conservatives simply see no way they can support Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. (As I have pointed out, led by their liberal "values," I don't think either can be trusted on ANY issue.) This creates a very interesting opportunity for a Cruz/Rubio candidacy.

If there's a three-way race and the Republican controlled U.S. House must choose our President, I believe that Cruz/Rubio would be the choice. If this happens, several fascinating questions must be considered. First of all, what happens to the Republican Party? Also, would we see it replaced by a "Conservative Party?" Would we see the rise of other political parties?

Of course, this is all academic. Much is still to be decided. However, as we get closer and closer to actually choosing a GOP candidate, this scenario should be weighed.


Just a few minutes after posting my piece, I saw this by Rick Moran at PJ Media. He reports on a Politico piece that gives details of a memo prepared by a Florida research firm hired by big-money GOP donors. The memo reveals that significant factions within the GOP are looking to funding a run by a third-party candidate. No candidate is name, but it is clear that this scenario is gaining significant traction.

Copyright 2016, 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, February 22, 2016

God, Conservatism, and Donald Trump

For the last several days, I’ve spent a lot of time spreading the following paragraph around the Internet:

Donald Trump is a biblically-illiterate, adulterous, strip-club owning, casino magnate. He has been on every side of almost any political or moral issue you can imagine. Yeah, he's said some things that people like to hear, but what is there in his life that reveals that he will actually do what he says? He is “wise in his own eyes” and we should not be swayed by his cunning, craftiness, and deceitful scheming. Even the shallowest of political observers knows well that Washington, D.C. is one of the most difficult places in the world to remain a principled person. The temptations for corruption are rampant. What is there in Trump’s life that tells us that once he gets to D.C. he will act according to conservative principles? Nearly nothing. America should NOT gamble with Donald Trump.

You can imagine the responses I got from the rabid (Is there any other kind?) Trump supporters. One reply said the following, “Nothing in you (sic) stupid statement tells me you know what in the hell conservative principle’s (sic) are, you sound like idiot beck (sic) or cruz (sic) on one of his lying bible thumping snake handling speeches.”

Kind-of makes you sic (sick), doesn’t it?

In spite of the grammar, it made me think about “conservative principles.” In a quick reply, without really dwelling on the matter, I said, “The most significant principle of (conservatism) is that our rights come, not from man or from government, but from God. We cannot have as president a man who rejects the Laws of the Law Giver.”

A couple of days later, because of his comments on immigrants and immigration, and due to his desire to wall off the southern border, the Pope himself was questioning the Christian credentials of Donald Trump. When asked by reporters for his thoughts on Trump’s ideas for ending illegal immigration to the U.S., Pope Francis answered, “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.”

Forgetting for a moment the Pope’s sloppy analogy (it must have been a while since the Bishop of Rome has been home, or read the Book of Nehemiah), of all the things over which to question Mr. Trump’s Christianity, immigration was a very poor choice. Unlike abortion, homosexuality, marriage, divorce, financial stewardship, fornication, and forgiveness—all areas where, from a Christian perspective, Mr. Trump’s words and deeds are at best questionable—there is no clear-cut biblical direction on the matter of immigration.

Also, can you recall a time when the Supreme Pontiff (at least this Pontiff) was so quick to question the Christianity of a leading American liberal politician? How “Christian” is it to kill children in the womb, promote every kind of sexual deviancy imaginable, promote an enslaving welfare state, or redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity? When then presidential candidate Obama was using some of the most radical pro-abortion language by any politician in U.S. history, I recall little, if any, protest at all from Vatican officials. Tragically for decades now, much like many liberal denominations across the U.S., the Catholic Church has shown tremendous ignorance and indifference toward sin.

Of course, a devout Christian in the White House won’t cure sin in our culture. Nevertheless, history and sound conservative doctrine prove that a strong Christian worldview is the surest means by which to secure and promote liberty, peace, and prosperity in the U.S. and the world over.

At The Heritage Foundation, Edwin J. Fuelner highlights the conservatism of Edmund Burke. “The principles of true politics,” Burke said, “are those of morality enlarged.” Dr. Fuelner also notes that, “Burkean conservatism,” as he calls it, “is a branch of ethics which separates him sharply from Machiavelli and the modern idea that power is supreme in politics. Burke's basic political principles are based on the classical and Christian natural law, derived from God and perceived by good men through ‘right reason.’”

Such “right reason” led Burke, whom many consider to be the father of modern conservatism, to oppose the godless and bloody French Revolution. Reflecting on “the new liberty of France,” Burke concluded that, “I should therefore suspend my congratulations…until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies;…with morality and religion;…with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.”

While observing what Americans did with their new-found liberty—and noticing the lack of summary executions, genocide, and the guillotine—Alexis de Tocqueville concluded that “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth…The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

The brilliant Russell Kirk agreed. Author of the seminal The Conservative Mind, Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another.” The first of Kirk’s “Six Canons of Conservatism” declares “Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems.”

In The Portable Conservative Reader, Kirk concludes that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.”

The “decay” of Christianity in America has most certainly coincided with a “decline” in our culture. Thinking they are “progressing” toward a society with more freedom and greater happiness, far too many Americans have ignored Burke when he warned, “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters (chains).”

We have forgotten what “America’s Schoolmaster,” Noah Webster, taught us: “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.” The size of our economy, the might of our military, or the abundance of our natural resources matters little if we are a nation filled with people devoted to a “theology of self.”

A nation whose laws and lawmakers will not protect the most innocent and defenseless among us, will not guard the oldest institution in the history of humanity, who protect the pervert and punish the pious, is a nation that will not long endure. A nation who cannot see the clear eternal truths when it comes to life, marriage, the family, and so on, cannot be trusted to get its immigration policy right, cannot be trusted to get its foreign policy right, cannot be trusted to maintain fiscal discipline, and cannot be trusted with the most powerful military the world has ever known.

I sometimes like to refer to myself as a “John Jay conservative.” Jay—a Founding Father, member of both Continental Congresses, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court—stated that, “it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers.” This is why, when going to the ballot box, faith is foremost in my mind. And this is why, in the GOP primary, I will not be voting for Donald Trump.

(See a version of this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, 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, February 21, 2016

The Liberal Media Slanders Manny Pacquiao

Boxing legend and Filipino politician Manny Pacquiao, a devout Christian, recently has found himself on the wrong side of a unanimous decision of a different sort. Last week, Pacquiao, already elected twice to the Philippines National Assembly and now a candidate for the Filipino Senate, was questioned by a Manila Channel 5 reporter on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

When asked, Pacquiao responded, "It’s common sense. Will you see any animals where male is to male and female is to female? The animals are better. They know how to distinguish male from female. If we approve male on male, female on female then man is worse than animals."

Shortly later, Nike announced that it was cutting endorsement ties with Pacquiao. Of course, the rabidly liberal mainstream media took the opportunity to paint Pacquiao as an ignorant, hateful, (and again making use of the dumbest word in the English language) "homophobe." In doing so, in almost every instance, the liberal mainstream media deceitfully reported on (lied about) what Pacquiao actually said.

Demonstrating an amazing ignorance of human biology, in the largest paper in my home state of Georgia, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, reporter Michael Cunningham wrote, "Nike ended its endorsement deal with the Filipino boxer following his vile, bigoted comments about gay people. In an interview posted online, Pacquiao said gay people are 'worse than animals' and displayed unsurprising ignorance about animal biology."

At the beginning of its piece on the matter, USA Today said, "Nike announced it has dropped Manny Pacquiao in the wake of the boxer’s controversial remarks where he said those in gay relationships 'are worse than animals.'" The New York Times began, "Nike has terminated its relationship with Manny Pacquiao, the champion boxer who is campaigning for the Senate in the Philippines, one day after he publicly apologized for calling people in gay relationships 'worse than animals' during an interview with a local broadcaster."

According to The Times, Nike said, "We find Manny Pacquiao’s comments abhorrent. Nike strongly opposes discrimination of any kind and has a long history of supporting and standing up for the rights of the LGBT community."

Life Site News gets the matter correct as it points out, what Pacquiao was actually saying "is that 'man' –society in general—'is worse than animals,' 'if we approve' same sex 'marriage.'" What's more, as I have pointed out before, Pacquiao's views are very much in line with those of Thomas Jefferson, Sir William Blackstone, and almost every other human being most responsible for the founding of this great nation.

As my column nearly two years ago notes,

Under British law, sodomy was a capital crime. Sir William Blackstone was a renowned and favorite English jurist of our Founders, and his Commentaries on the Laws of England served as the basis of legal jurisprudence in America. 
As David Barton remarks, “In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), [Blackstone] found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it.” Nevertheless, Blackstone declared: 
“What has been here observed…the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished….I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]…A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: …(where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 
“THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept.” 
Following the same moral precepts, each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Thomas Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?) 
New York’s law read, “That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.” 
Connecticut’s law read, “That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.” Georgia’s law (surprisingly—at least for today’s liberals) did not call for the death penalty, but stated, “Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.”
Minus the punishment of death, until just the last couple of decades, this view on homosexuality was predominant, not only across the U.S., but the world over. But of course, history, nor human law determines truth. The truth on homosexuality, sexuality in general, marriage, and the like is revealed by the Law Giver. Any human laws or opinions contrary to Him and His Word is what should be found "abhorrent."

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

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Scalia's Death and Supreme Politics

The announcement of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death has sent shock waves across the political spectrum of the United States. Scalia was the leading conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court. He was an intellectual giant, and an unapologetic "originalist" when it came to the U.S. Constitution. He will be sorely missed.

Unsurprisingly, in today's hyper-political culture, the news of Scalia's death was soon overtaken by the political ramifications that loom as the result of his death. Leading Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have already stated that the Senate will wait until after the election before confirming Scalia's replacement. Of course, Democrats are clamoring (howling maybe?) for Obama to get his replacement approved. Obama is saying he will nominate a replacement for Scalia "in due time."

I have long noted that one of the most important things to consider when voting for president is the power of the U.S. President to appoint federal judges. The U.S. Supreme Court imposed legalized abortion on the whole of the United States. This infamous ruling has endured now for well over four decades. The Supreme Court let Obamacare stand. For the last two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has played no small role in forcing legitimization of homosexuality across the U.S. And of course, last year, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed a perverse re-definition of marriage on the whole of the United States.

It was not only judges appointed by liberal presidents who sided with those opposed to the Laws of the Law Giver. Republican nominees to the Court have failed us in this way as well. This is why, not simply a Republican, but a strong, principled constitutional conservative in the White House is of the utmost importance.

The Senate must stay strong in opposition to Obama and his liberal lackeys when it comes to Scalia's replacement. Conservatives--those in the Senate, those running for President, and pundits across the country--must make this an election issue. It is rare that the U.S. President's power to appoint judges is at the forefront of the issues before an electorate during a presidential election. We must take advantage and paint a clear picture for American voters of what's at stake.

Trevor Thomas

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

New Hampshire Vote Totals Look Troubling for Democrats

There was little suspense with the winners in the 2016 New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Just after the polls closed, the winners were known. Donald Trump easily won on the GOP side, and Bernie Sanders handily defeated Hillary Clinton. Most pundits are most interested in the second through fourth place finishers on the GOP side--especially where Cruz, Rubio, and Bush fall. (See results here.)

However, as of about 11:30 p.m. I believe there is even more interesting news. In 2008 the last time both parties had seriously contested NH primaries, the total GOP vote was 234,851. The total Democrat vote (which saw Hillary beat Barack) was 284,090. Tonight, with 71% of GOP vote in, the republicans have a total of 190,975 votes. With 72 % of the democrat vote in, Bernie and Hillary have totaled 166,516 votes.

This appears to be a major vote total decline for the democrats. Two states into the U.S. Presidential primary process, enthusiasm is not on the democrat side.

(Updates to follow.)

Update (7:10 a.m.): With 88% of the vote counted, GOP total is 258,354. With 89% of the vote counted, Democrat total is 227,543. This looks like its going to be a complete reversal of the vote totals from the 2008 New Hampshire Presidential Primary. Since 1992, New Hampshire has gone for the Democrats in the presidential general election five out of six times (the exception was 2000 when Bush beat Gore). I'm not sure how important is the vote turn-around in the primary (almost no one is reporting on this) and how exactly that will translate to the general election, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Update (9:20 a.m.): The Washington Times is now reporting on this. Its headline:
"GOP shatters its turnout record; Democrats lag behind."

Saturday, February 6, 2016

“Live Free, Live True”

Recently, in a broadcast entitled “Why I’m Not an Atheist,” renowned Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias expounded on what he described as the three levels of philosophy. In the midst of discussing the second level (“drama, music, novel, and the existential struggle in your imagination”), Dr. Zacharias notes that, “It is most intriguing to me that the moral philosophers of the late 18th century were really the romantic poets and the writers.” Zacharias then quotes Andrew Fletcher—Scottish writer and political activist of the late-17th and early-18th century—who said, “Let me write the songs of a nation, I don’t care who writes its laws.”

A modern translation of this proverb might read: “If you want to change the culture, don’t raise your son to be a senator, raise him to be a television executive.”

Similarly, in God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis writes, “I believe that any Christian who is qualified to write a good popular book on any science may do much more by that than by any directly apologetic work. The difficulty we are up against is this. We can make people (often) attend to the Christian point of view for half an hour or so; but the moment they have gone away from our lecture or laid down our article, they are plunged back into a world where the opposite position is taken for granted. As long as that situation exists, widespread success is simply impossible. We must attack the enemy’s line of communication. What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects—with their Christianity latent.”

Sadly, there’s been little Christian interruption, either latent or overt, of the “enemy’s line of communication.” Whether attacking the meekest or most entrenched forms of Christianity, the forces of the enemy have long demonstrated themselves very capable of painting the path to destruction as a mellifluous, magnificent, and noble journey. Recently, my wife and I encountered just such an example of deviant artistry.

Season three of the highly regarded British television show Ripper Street dealt with, among other things, the issue of abortion. Set in Whitechapel in the East End of London during the late 19th century (just after the infamous Jack the Ripper murders), Ripper Street is largely a crime drama. Episode seven of season three (see a printed transcript here) is deceitfully entitled “Live Free, Live True.”

At the beginning of the episode, a chemist who provides women seeking abortions a poisonous lead-laced concoction (that does much more damage than kill the child in the womb), is found murdered. Detective Reid, the main protagonist of the series, visits Obsidian Clinic—a clinic providing charitable health care to the women of Whitechapel—and questions the female doctor (Dr. Frayne) there about whether or not they may have treated any women mutilated by the dead chemist.

Dr. Frayne hesitantly admits, “These women, these unhappy creatures, they come to me for help, this is their word for it. And like any doctor in this city, I could end their troubles safely, easily. (Notice, a child in the womb is “trouble.”) But it is illegal, so I must turn them away to be mangled and shredded by these quacks, criminals of the backstreets and side alleys. And then they come to me after, and I must make good the wretched work.”

Thus, the writers of Ripper Street would have us believe, that even in nineteenth century England, the cry for “safe and legal” abortions was a common (and noble) refrain, which, if ignored, leads to the back-alley butchering of women. Later in the show Dr. Frayne introduces her friend and “mentor,” Dr. Rolle, to Miss Hart, the director of the Obsidian Clinic. Dr. Rolle is revealed to be a member of the Malthusian League—a (real) nineteenth century British organization devoted to fighting the “scourge” of overpopulation.

Appealing to Miss Hart to bring the practices of Dr. Rolle to Obsidian, Dr. Frayne pleads, “Everyday it seems, I mow down the noxious weeds, but the roots remain, and the plant only grows again…I would give my women the information they need, but I would give them more. I would give them the help they beg for: safe procedure.” Miss Hart clarifies for the audience: “You mean to offer abortion at the clinic.”

Miss Hart—no paradigm of virtue, as her main role in the series, up until the third season, was as the Madam of a whore house—rejects Dr. Frayne’s proposal outright, declaring “Absolutely not. It is illegal.” Sounding as if she got her talking points from Gloria Steinem, Dr. Frayne boldly retorts, “The law is an ass.”

Not content with being a cheerleader for abortion, this episode also paints an ugly picture of marriage and motherhood. A few scenes after rejecting Dr. Frayne’s ideas on abortion at her clinic, Miss Hart speaks with Rose Erskine, a now famous local singer and reformed prostitute who was once employed at Miss Hart’s previous business venture. Rose is being romantically pursued by Bennet Drake, a regular detective in the series.

Miss Hart asks, “My Rose, your Bennet, you sought him out? Do you wonder still at his intentions?” Rose replies, “I have no doubt, he means to make me his wife.” Miss Hart condescendingly replies, “This is a sad smile, indeed…[Because] of course, as song bird of Blewett's, she shall sing no more. She shall be in her nest, feeding her chicks.”

Attempting to defend the future she now longs for, Rose asks, “And can a woman not be a mother and a singer?” Miss Hart solemnly concludes, “I think that must depend on the husband.”

To further paint marriage and motherhood as a prison, the episode soon takes a strange twist with a character (George Tait) who was the caretaker for a still living victim (Mary Tait) of the chemist abortionist found murdered at the beginning of the show. George Tait, in jail for assaulting the man he accused of seducing (and impregnating) Mary, is questioned about the dead chemist.

The investigators reveal to Mr. Tait that there are no records of him or his Mary. Inspector Reid asks George, “You are a brick setter, Hm? An ordinary man.” George replies, “Yes, sir.” Reid responds, “No, Mr. Tait, not ordinary. For you do not officially exist. You are a convict, perhaps. But I see no mark. Or an absconder, fled from the army. Navy?” George answers, “No, sir. A convict I never was. Though a prisoner, surely...but escaped.”

We later find out that George Tait is really Sarah Elizabeth James. Confronting “George” Inspector Reid reveals her past to the audience: “You fled the bounds of a woman’s life. You put on a man’s clothes. You were free to do as you please, go to places you would not else be welcome. And Mary…you meant to save her, too, from the perils of a woman's existence. But they caught her nonetheless. The injustice of it, that she should fall into the hands of a man like Currie (the abortionist). And just as you’d built your own life, so you served your own justice on him.”

Thus, not only does the audience get a sympathetic picture of abortion, but of transgenderism as well. Caught, (and sounding much more grim than Cosmo Kramer) “George” confesses, “You have unmanned me. Oh, my mother. Twelve children she had. Year on year, they ripped their path through her and into the world. My father unheeding, insisting on his rights. I ask you, who would be a woman? Who would be a wife?”

Dismayed that her “father” is adorned in a gown (I suppose “George” didn’t have the foresight and the lawyers as did Bradley Manning.), as “George” is led away to the gallows, Mary—still ignorant of her caretaker’s deception—mournfully exclaims, “Oh, George. Oh, my George, my father.” Her “father” yells, “You make me this promise. You live a brave, bright life for yourself, whatsoever it may be. You choose it…You live your life full. Live free, and live true (the title of the episode). Mm. Promise me that…Live true, my baby!”

One of the more alluring lies often chanted by the enemy (which completely contradicts the message of Jesus) is to “Be True to Yourself!” In other words, according to those devoted to the “theology of self,” to find real happiness in this life, one must rule his own world. Of course, the “theology of self” is at the heart of the abortion debate. As author and philosopher Michael Novak puts it, “To such women (those seeking an abortion), having an unplanned child represents a threat so great to modern women that it is perceived as the equivalent to a ‘death of self.’”

Later in “Live Free, Live True,” Miss Hart reveals herself to be rather self-devoted. She tells Dr. Frayne, “My thinking has changed. Has met your own. I will match your courage, Dr. Frayn. (Get that? It takes “courage” to kill the most helpless and defenseless among us.) I will fund this endeavor. You have taken the wind from my sails…I am pregnant, Dr. Frayn, and unmarried.” (We also learn that Dr. Frayne has relieved Miss Hart of such an affliction before.)

Excited, Dr. Frayne announces the good news to her mentor, Dr. Rolle. Dr. Rolle then reveals his “perfected” planned procedure for the women who will seek to end their pregnancies at Obsidian. “The patient suffers few complications. The treatment is absolute,” declares Dr. Rolle. Reading over Dr. Rolle’s plan, Dr. Frayne is aghast. “W-what you describe here... it is sterilization. We spoke of safe treatment, contraception, but you intend sterilization.”

Explaining himself, Dr. Rolle asks, “The prevention of unwanted pregnancy is our common aim, is it not? I-I thought we understood one another. If we are to staunch this rascal multitude, this overrunning, we must then eradicate the breeding population. And is it not logical, that the most careless should be the first?” Blind to her hypocrisy (I wonder if the show’s writers realized such.), Dr. Frayne indignantly declares, “I would remind you, sir, that you speak of human beings.”

The dehumanization of the unborn has been a familiar and very successful tactic of those wishing to justify the killing of humans in the womb. No doubt that successful use of the media in spreading such propaganda has played a great role in tens-of-millions of Americans either enthusiastically embracing this lie, or at least turning a blind eye to it. The tables must be turned. Christians appropriately gifted must use their creative talents to tell the world of the eternal truths—on life, marriage, manhood, womanhood, fatherhood, motherhood, charity, sex, creation, salvation, and so on—that will actually provide their audience with the hope and peace that they so desperately seek.

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