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, January 31, 2017

On Transgenders, the Boy Scouts Did What I Predicted They Would

In June of 2013, I wrote:
To encourage his demonic protégé, Screwtape explained to Wormwood, “It does not matter how small the sins are, provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing…Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

With the Boy Scouts of America’s (B.S.A.) decision to allow young gays into their ranks, another signpost warning against the sin of homosexuality has been removed.
The piece goes on to note that,
In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the Constitutional right to exclude gay members. This was because, as the Court concluded, opposition to homosexuality is part of the organization’s “expressive message.” Part of the Scout Oath states that Scouts will keep themselves “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” The Majority opinion in the 2000 ruling noted that the Scouts “teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight,” and that it does “not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”
In other words, no less than the U.S. Supreme Court had protected the Boy Scouts from the homosexual agenda. Yet, in 2013 the Boy Scouts chose to surrender and become citizens of the City of Man instead of the City of God.

At the end of the piece, I concluded:
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have granted legal rights to “transgender” people. In Colorado, the parents of a 6-year-old boy, who now, supposedly, wants to be a girl, are suing their school district for not allowing him to use the girls’ bathroom. 
Radical Massachusetts laws are requiring schools to allow students who “identify” as the opposite sex to use whichever bathroom, locker room, and sports teams they choose. In addition, the Massachusetts law (ironically!) allows no tolerance for students who are uncomfortable with the transgender directives. They are to be “re-educated,” says pro-family advocate Brian Camenker. 
Thus, how long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl—who has decided that she wants to be a boy—in the name of “tolerance” to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won’t last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.
Of course, not to be outdone, as I noted in 2015, it was the Girl Scouts who first caved to the transgender dogma of the homosexual agenda. The Boy Scouts are only now catching up. Instead of waiting on a lawsuit, it seems the Boy Scouts have gotten the hang of capitulating to the homosexual agenda, and on the gender-confused, did exactly what I thought they would. As Todd Starnes wrote today, 
The Boy Scouts of America sacrificed its last vestige of integrity on the altar of political correctness. 
On Monday, the BSA announced that girls who identify as boys will now be allowed to join the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts—marking a complete capitulation to the gender and sex revolutionaries. 
As I wrote in The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again, the time has come for every church and every parent in America to sever ties with the Boy Scouts. 
Though I was never involved in scouting, I've always been an enthusiastic outdoorsman and greatly respected the mission of the Boy Scouts. That respect was waning years ago, and is now completely gone. I have three boys and would NEVER allow them to participate in an organization so "Physically Ignorant, Mentally Lazy, and Morally Lost."

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

“Feminist” Fools: Nasty is as Nasty Does

The day after Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the forty-fifth President of the United States, radical liberal feminazis took to the streets of Washington D.C. and put on a disgusting display of hedonism and hate. What was billed as the “Women’s March on Washington” quickly devolved into what any sound-minded political observer knew it would, and the worst of the American left was on unhinged display for all the world to see.

Clueless to the notion that their unseemly words and deeds were instrumental in Mr. Trump winning the White House and conservative candidates across the U.S. winning in historic fashion, angry leftist women held back little as they vented their political rage in the nation’s capital and across the U.S. Accompanied by a young female (perhaps a juvenile, which should surprise no one) with “F-ck Trump” written on the front of her shirt and both middle fingers singularly pointed at the sky, Drudge’s headlined blared, “Women’s March Turns Nasty.” Was there any real doubt it would?

What else is to be expected when angry liberals don’t get their way, especially in an election? Have you ever wondered why liberals get so upset when they lose elections? It is because they have placed their hope in the forces of this world, especially political ones. Thus, when they lose at the ballot box, often, a fit ensues. Those who understand that this world is not our home—that real hope and real change are not brought about by mere politicians—are not very prone to throwing vile and violent tantrums when an election doesn’t go their way.

The Drudge headline was only a sampling of the ugliness on display this past Saturday. The very appropriately named “Jezebel” magazine provides a revealing montage (warning: graphic language—of course) of the message liberals wanted to impart to the world after Donald Trump’s inauguration. Reporting on what he deemed a “p*ssy riot,” Byron York at the Washington Examiner provides another smattering of the rampant rudeness that was paraded across the U.S.

Of course, being like-minded, the liberal media gleefully lapped this all up and spewed it back out far and wide. Again, all of this was probably to President Trump’s advantage. As if we needed to be reminded of the liberal double-standard in the mainstream media, nevertheless, as Erick Erickson noted,

People are idiots. Donald Trump will keeping winning because people are idiots. And no, I am not talking about Trump supporters. I am mostly talking about the press corps.
Let’s review Saturday shall we? 
The press decided to give massive coverage to the Women’s March in Washington with members of the press gleefully reporting every insult against Trump, but patently ignoring that one of the key speakers opposed the collapse of the Berlin Wall because she thought the communists were better than us. Another speaker, Ashley Judd, suggested Trump supporters were Nazis. 
Consider the reaction of the press had this been said of Barack Obama. Well, we do not have to ponder it. We know. The press was outraged. Remember how a congressional staffer got fired for tweeting something about the Obama kids? On Friday, multiple people with blue checkmarks on Twitter were attacking Baron Trump and the press said nothing. We also know how the press responded when anyone called Obama a muslim, Nazi, commie, etc. 
All this reinforces in many people’s minds that there is a double standard. And that double standard went into full force on Saturday. Supposedly objective reporters spent the day as activists and you all know it.
Along with the expected Nazi and Hitler references, the most common theme of the protestors centered around sex organs and sexual acts. Probably the most-used verb on any poster was, as Ralphie Parker put it, “the queen mother of all dirty words:” the “f-dash-dash-dash.” Taking her queue from the posters (as if she needed any encouragement), pop-harlot Madonna left the live-broadcasting media to apologize for her f-themed tirade. And along with foolishly declaring that she had “thought about blowing up the White House,” Madonna also sang some of her nastiness and changed the lyrics of one song to include “Donald Trump suck a d*ck.”

No doubt the most used noun on any poster was some vulgar reference to a vagina. In fact, whether in print or of a more knit variety, there were more references to female genitalia at this women’s march than in all of the dirty gas station men’s rooms across the U.S. Yet, we are told that Donald Trump is the vulgar one. Again, no one should be surprised that tens of thousands of angry protestors devoted to a liberal worldview would resort to hyper-sexual behavior in order to make their point. For liberals, sex so often is the point.

Whether screaming about Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, the Supreme Court, bathroom privileges, redefining marriage, redefining gender, and so on, the left—especially the feminist left—is consumed with sex. Most of this energy is concentrated on keeping the “right” to kill children in the womb. Tellingly, pro-life women were excluded from the march. When it initially looked like pro-life groups were going to be allowed to participate, the radical pro-abortionists went ballistic. Declaring that the killing of children in the womb is “central” to feminism, Jessica Valenti was “horrified” that pro-life women were going to be allowed to march with what she must deem as “real feminists.”

March organizers soon apologized for including those willing to stand for the most innocent and defenseless females (and males) among us. The photo below reveals the tragic level of devotion to abortion that exists among the modern left:

Having placed such hope in politics and government explains well why liberals crave political power and why they will do most anything—including donning a “p*ssy hat,” conducting a “p*ssy riot,” and longing for the death of the unborn baby Jesus—to obtain such power. After all, as the Obama years well demonstrated, perverse liberal “values” are best imposed—whether by the threat of jail, fines, or even at the end of a gun—by Big Brother.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Recent Study Reveals Significant Health Disparities for Homosexual Teens

A recent (and first of its kind) study verifies again what many Christians have long warned about the homosexual lifestyle. Published in August of 2016 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the study—Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health Related Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12—looked at a wide variety of risky behaviors among U.S. high school students.

The study monitored six categories of “priority health-related behaviors among youth and young adults: 1.) behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence; 2.) tobacco use; 3.) alcohol and other drug use; 4.) sexual behaviors related to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections; 5.) unhealthy dietary behaviors; 6.) physical inactivity.”

The study used two questions to measure a student’s sexual status: “Which of the following best describes you?” The response options were, “heterosexual (straight),” “gay or lesbian,” “bisexual,” and “not sure.” The sexual activity of students surveyed was determined by asking: “During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact?” The response options were, “I have never had sexual contact,” “females,” “males,” and “females and males.” In analyzing the results, researchers grouped students who identified as “gay or lesbian” and “bisexual” into the same group (which I will describe here as: “teenagers (or students) engaging in homosexual activity”).

In almost every instance, the risky behavior measured—especially behaviors that are often linked to a moral decision—was much more prevalent among teenagers engaging in homosexual activity. In addition, and unsurprisingly, those students with the healthiest outcomes were those who refrained from sexual activity. In most of the risky behaviors measured, the outcomes are not even close.

For example, students engaging in homosexual activity were about three times more likely to feel “sad or hopeless” than students who had no sexual contact. In addition, students engaging in homosexual activity were nearly four times more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide than students who had no sexual contact, and they were six-and-a-half times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

Comparing the same two groups (students engaging in homosexual activity vs. students with no sexual contact), students engaging in homosexual activity were:
  • Eight times more likely to smoke
  • 47 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
  • Nearly 3 times as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
  • Three-and-a-half times as likely to be currently using alcohol
  • More than 11 times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
  • Nearly six times as likely to be currently using marijuana
  • More than 16 times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs 
  • More than 18 times as likely ever to have used cocaine 
  • 30 times as likely ever to have used heroin
  • And 23 times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines 
Likewise, compared to students who had no sexual contact, sexually active heterosexual students were:
  • Five times more likely to smoke
  • Nearly 17 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
  • Nearly twice as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
  • Three times as likely to be currently using alcohol
  • More than nine times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
  • More than four times as likely to be currently using marijuana
  • Nearly nine times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs 
  • Nine times as likely ever to have used cocaine 
  • More than seven times as likely ever to have used heroin
  • And seven times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines
In other words, the teenagers least likely to put their health and lives in danger (along with the health and lives of others) by engaging in risky behaviors are those who are choosing to follow the moral precepts of their Creator.

None of this should come as a surprise. As I implied at the beginning of this piece, the unhealthy and unsafe behaviors of those who have decided to go their own way sexually is well documented. Of course, it’s not the homosexuality or the fornication itself that leads to other immoral behavior, but the rebellious spirit that lies at the root of such behavior. As Dr. Jeffrey Satinover puts it, “[O]nce people begin to ‘walk on the wild side,’ they have effectively broken one of societies strongest taboos. Other taboos then fall away easily and rapidly.” This is especially true of men who engage in homosexual behavior.

Satinover notes in his seminal book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, homosexuality often (if not always) leads to:
  • A 25- to 30-year decrease in life expectancy.
  • Chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease—infectious hepatitis, which increases the risk of liver cancer.
  • Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers.
  • Frequently fatal rectal cancer.
  • Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases.
  • A much higher than usual incidence of suicide.
Men having sex with men (MSM) account for the vast majority (over 75 percent in 2014) of all cases of syphilis. According to the CDC in 2014, MSM were much more likely to contract virtually every sexually transmitted disease (STD) known, including syphilis, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.

The CDC reported last year that rates for sexually transmitted diseases have reached record highs in the U.S. In a news release, Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, declared, “We have reached a decisive moment for the nation.” According to the report, those at greatest risk for STDs in the U.S. are young people ages 15-24, and homosexual men.

The CDC also reports that though they are only about 2 percent of the population, men engaging in homosexual behavior make up 55 percent of all people living with HIV in the U.S. In 2014, homosexual men made up more than two-thirds of all new HIV diagnoses in the United States.

Again, none of this is new information. For as long as there have been organizations willing and able to measure such data, or wherever common sense and sound morality reign, it has been well understood that those engaging in sexually immoral behavior—especially homosexuality—are much less healthy than the general population. Or, as Dr. Satinover put it, “The correlation between male homosexuality and disease has been recognized for at least two thousand years.” Of course, what is relatively new is the desire to ignore or deceive when it comes to one of the most significant health risks a culture could face.

In the name of “sexual freedom,” instead of talking about these behaviors in terms of the real problems that they are (and teaching people to avoid such behaviors), decades of liberal rot has led to meaningless and ineffective campaigns of “awareness, education, and tolerance.” Even the CDC itself—whose stated mission is to protect Americans from “health, safety, and security threats”—will say nothing to discourage homosexual behavior. All the while, as the science reveals again, American kids are suffering and dying.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Dear Cornel West: Pity the Sad, Sorry, and Sick Fruit of Liberalism

Radical liberal, and prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America, Dr. Cornel West, wants us to "Pity the Sad Legacy of Barack Obama." He begins,
Eight years ago the world was on the brink of a grand celebration: the inauguration of a brilliant and charismatic black president of the United States of America. Today we are on the edge of an abyss: the installation of a mendacious and cathartic white president who will replace him.
This is a depressing decline in the highest office of the most powerful empire in the history of the world. It could easily produce a pervasive cynicism and poisonous nihilism. Is there really any hope for truth and justice in this decadent time?
West goes on to write about character, destiny, truth, and the public good. I guess it's lost on this Harvard and Princeton educated liberal that, when you refuse to stand up for the most innocent and defenseless among us (the unborn), and when you oversee the perverse legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity (marriage), your pleas for "justice" and your laments about "truth" might fall of deaf ears.

As I implied in a tweet earlier today, U.S. liberals (with little to no political opposition) oversee the most unjust and unsafe places in America. (Again, the fruit of liberalism is rotten indeed.) Likewise, but on a much worse and larger scale, the socialism that West represents has produced some of the poorest most dangerous places in the world.

Trevor Thomas

Sunday, January 8, 2017

The Stunning Deceit and Ignorance of the “Champions of Science”

Time and again the American left—led by the mainstream media, Hollywood elite, and the Democrat Party—lectures us about the ignorance of conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who isn’t devoted to a “progressive” (amazing how regressive is “progressivism”) worldview. With their talk shows, columns, commercials, movies, sitcoms, roundtables, protests, Facebook posts, tweets, and the like, liberals unashamedly, repeatedly, and without hesitation (and often without much thought) denigrate those with whom they disagree. Yet, time and again, as they preach their philosophy and live out their “faith,” it is liberals who are stubbornly hindered by the facts of science and morality.

Examples abound, but a recent case in point is President Obama’s final address to the U.S. military. After attempting to disguise his foreign policy failures with the accomplishments of our “remarkable Special Forces,” and rightfully touting the love, patriotism, and sacrifice of our Gold Star families, Obama declared,
Our Navy is the largest and most lethal in the world, on track to surpass 300 ships. Our Air Force, with its precision and reach, is unmatched. Our Marine Corps is the world's only truly expeditionary force. Our Coast Guard is the finest in the world. And we're also the best because this military has come to welcome the talents of more of our fellow Americans. Service members can now serve the country they love without hiding who they are…And Joe Biden and I know that women are at least as strong as men. We're stronger for it. It's one of the reasons that our military stands apart as the most respected institution in our nation by a mile. (Emphasis mine.)
In his lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, tragically, President Obama has often used the U.S. military as a tool to practice and promote his perverse social re-engineering. I try to avoid using “stupid” when it comes to my criticism of liberals and liberalism, but the first sentence highlighted above leaves me no choice. There’s no other way to describe the statement—especially when discussing our military—“women are as least as strong as men.”

I suppose one could argue Obama meant it in a non-physical, “fighting spirit” sort-of sense, but that does not fly with his recent efforts and the efforts of his administration when it comes to the role of women in the military. In January of 2013, after Obama’s Joint Chiefs of Staff gave him the unanimous decision that he almost certainly expected when it comes to American women and U.S. military combat operations, the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations.

In December of 2015, in what The New York Times hailed as “a historic transformation of the American military,” Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women. Carter proudly and foolishly announced,
There will be no exceptions. They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.
As Iraq veteran, Harvard Law School graduate, and Bronze Star winner David French noted a few months prior to Secretary Carter’s announcement, such thinking is intellectually corrupt and “idiotic.” As I noted last year, comparing male and female athletes, “in spite of the efforts of liberals, there will never be ‘gender equality’ when it comes to [men and women], because human genders are not—and will never be—equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women…What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who’s observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women.” As Psychology Today points out:
The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.
What’s more, “The average man is stronger than 99.9% of women (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009). Men also have about 65% greater lower body strength (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009, Mayhew and Salm, 1990), over 45% higher vertical leap, and over 22% faster sprint times (Mayhew & Salm, 1990).” And as Mike Fredenburg points out,
Men’s blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does women’s…Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser…When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are “more likely than women to take action.” Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently. For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, “study after study” conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women.
Of course, none of this information is new, and did anyone at the highest levels of our government and military really need rigorous academic research to understand such? But this is what happens when liberalism corrupts.

The Boy Scouts of America has been similarly corrupted, and the ignorance is just as stunning. Three and a half years ago, in June of 2013, when the Boy Scouts of America decided to allow young homosexuals into their ranks, I warned:
[H]ow long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl—who has decided that she wants to be a boy—in the name of “tolerance” to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won’t last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.
Two years later, in May of 2015, I was none too surprised to note that it was the Girl Scouts of America who were the first to capitulate to the transgender wing of the LGBT agenda. However, as I feared, the Boy Scouts (Cub Scouts) are now in the national news because they have kicked a New Jersey girl out of a Cub Scout troop because—of course—she’s not a boy.

Only a mind corrupted by liberalism could promote the notion that a human being can simply choose his or her gender. Do I really need to present data here on what makes one a male or a female? Since at least the 1970s, when among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section “Boys’ Toys” and “Girls’ Toys,” liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls—aside from the obvious biological ones—were the result of “patriarchal cultural biases.”

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to “dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine.” And as the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital recently noted, transgenderism is “a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” Dr. Paul McHugh notes, not treating transgender disorder properly “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

Blind to the notion that some things are settled for all-time, once liberals began to insist we debate what is marriage, we should not have been surprised that they would want to debate what is a male and what is a female—or any other long-held, long-settled matter that conflicts with modern liberal orthodoxy in the sexual realm.

Few things in the modern era motivate liberals to ignore sound science and morality more than their desire to do whatever they wish sexually. Nothing illustrates this better than the debate that surrounds the homosexual agenda. In addition to the clear teaching of virtually every western religion on homosexuality, science has long revealed the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle. Yet liberals persist—passionately and angrily—in denying these truths when challenged in any way in this matter. Gospel singing legend Kim Burrell is the latest victim on this front in the left’s war on the truth. After the gospel singer dared to preach the Gospel on homosexuality, liberal McCarthyists went on the attack. A scheduled appearance by Burrell on the TV show Ellen was cancelled. Texas Southern University cancelled Burrell’s radio show on their station, KTSU. And of course, the liberal media was quick to label Burrell a “bigot.”

All of this, and I’ve made no mention of the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the climate debate, or the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the abortion debate. In spite of their arrogant self-promotion as champions of science, liberals are behind the greatest lies of our era.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America