New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!
The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book (as low as $9.99).
Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

If you "Like" this page, please visit our Facebook page for
The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Monday, July 15, 2019

Sorry Ladies; It’s Just Biology, Psychology, and Economics

Just like probably 90 percent or so of those virtue signaling in favor of “pay equality” for the American women who won the FIFA Women’s World Cup, I’ve never paid to attend a women’s soccer game. In fact, as best I can recall, I’ve never paid to attend ANY women’s sporting event. The only girl I’ve ever paid to watch compete in sports is the beautiful and talented Caroline Thomas—the (now) 13-year-old karate champion:


Yeah, that’s my girl, and she has about 15 of those first-place trophies—in both karate fighting (which involves contact, but is not very violent) and forms, or “kata.” Caroline also plays in a co-ed basketball league. Like most other fathers, I would pay (up to a point) to watch my daughter show off her talents in almost any venue—whether in sports, performing on stage, or in a cooking contest (Caroline also likes to cook). However, it doesn’t mean that the public at large is interested in forking over their hard-earned dollars to watch my daughter perform—especially in the realm of athletics.

The “inequality” that exists in women’s sports is nothing new, and in spite of what many on the left would have us believe, involves nothing nefarious. As I noted several years ago, the fact that consumers overwhelmingly prefer men’s sports to women’s sports is merely a matter of biology and psychology and not due to some mythical misogynistic plot. The facts and the data clearly bear this out.

Just as was the case in 2015—the latest data available when I last wrote about this issue—in 2018, when examining sports audiences, men’s sports dominated television ratings. Of the 50 most-watched sporting events in 2018, 43 of them were men’s football—40 NFL games and three college football games. The other seven were events from the Winter Olympics.

According to Sports Media Watch, including pre-game coverage, Fox earned a 7.7 rating and had 12.98 million viewers for the Women’s World Cup final. These number are nowhere close to what was needed to make the top 50 most-watched sporting events of 2018. The 50th place event—Winter Olympics night 6—had an 11.4 rating and 19.3 million viewers. There’s virtually no doubt the Women’s World Cup final will not make 2019’s top 50 list either.

If you exclude the NFL and the Winter Olympics, women’s sports are still nowhere to be found among the most-watched sporting events in 2018. Again, as was the case in 2015, even non-humans outperform women’s sports in viewership—two of the 2018 non-NFL/Winter Olympics top 50 were horse racing events. The Kentucky Derby was 16th on this list with an 8.5 rating and 15 million viewers.

When it comes to television audience and paid attendees, the women’s professional sports that compete annually are not in the same universe as men’s sports—or even horse racing. In 2018, the top-rated women’s tennis event was the U.S. Open Women’s final. It earned a 1.9 rating with 3.1 million viewers. The top-rated women’s golf event for 2018 was the U.S. Women’s Open Final Round. It earned a 0.6 rating with 878,000 viewers. The top-rated WNBA event for 2018 was the WNBA All Star Game. It earned a 0.5 rating with 709,000 viewers.

Thus, as such consumer data implies, according to Forbes—from boxer Floyd Mayweather ($285 million) to basketball player Nicolas Batum ($22.9 million)—of the world’s 100 highest paid athletes in 2018, not a single female athlete made the list. Again, there is nothing evil at work here; it is simply a matter of economics. Whether in person or through television or live streaming on their phone or computer, fans simply prefer to watch men compete than women.

Of course, this does not mean that fans are “discriminating” against women. Fans are discriminating, just not in the way the “equal pay” loons of the left would have us believe. I’ve jokingly told the left before how to make women’s sports more interesting: allow men to compete as women. Forgetting that the left takes jokes and makes them into policy, I never thought they would take me up on it.

Given the pay disparity that already exists among male and female athletes, and given how the left is determined to convince us that this is “unfair,” the fact that liberals are now allowing men to take trophies and dollars from women is the height of absurdity. It just goes to show how tragically devoted to the perverse LGBT agenda is the modern left.

Unless the left continues down this road where gender-deluded (or financially savvy?) men are allowed to compete as women, there will never be “equal pay” or “gender equality” when it comes to athletics, because human genders are not—and will never be—equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women. And “bigger, faster, and stronger” makes for more exciting and interesting sports.

What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who has 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 than 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.
As Ann Coulter noted over a decade ago, “Competitive sports are ritualized forms of fighting, and boys like to fight.” In other words, sports—especially those involving heavy contact—is a form of battle, and in spite of what the foolish left would have us believe, men are much more suited for battle than are women. No amount of legislation, legal wrangling, or whining is going to change these facts.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, July 14, 2019

“Pride” Goes Before Destruction

My husband Trevor and I recently took our four children to Washington, D.C. for the first (and likely last) time. It was amazing to see the historic monuments and to tour the Capitol building and the museums. It is truly rich with history and tradition and grandeur.

What was not so amazing were the rainbow flags all over the city and the homeless encampments and the ghetto-like areas and the sirens at night and the filth. D.C. is a liberal cesspool, and it shows. I did all of the driving while we were there because Trevor was struggling with a pinched nerve. I wonder if the many, many honks that I received while driving around the city were the result of my “Choose Life” license plate or my driving skills. I’ll never know. But as you might imagine, we had some wonderful opportunities to teach our children about the very visible and tangible differences between our wonderful, conservative Northeast Georgia district versus life in the most liberal area of the country. I don’t think they will forget those lessons any time soon.

I have been sickened lately by all of the commercials and signs and shows touting “Pride” for the LGBT lifestyles. I get a bit confused by all of the initials that they use, and it seems that they keep adding more and more. Maybe when they’re finished we could just sing the “ABCs” to describe all of their various lifestyle “choices.”

I logged onto my AT&T account the other day and saw a rainbow globe as their new logo. A commercial for cosmetics company Sephora that airs multiple times during one of the shows that we watch is filled with men pretending to be women. Various commercials flash scenes of homosexual couples in their ads, seemingly to kowtow to that miniscule, militant portion of our population. Even an email that I received from our local grocery store, Kroger, the other day had a “Pride” section in it, detailing what Kroger is doing to help celebrate sin. And it seems that nearly every show and movie these days—even kids’ shows—have inserted some sort of transvestite character or homosexual or other similar perversity. Big companies and Hollywood are forcing this issue before our eyes in the hopes that we will begin to accept it as “normal.”

I recently read a quote by pastor and author, Francis Chan. He said, “In a postmodern culture obsessed with feelings and political correctness, the Church must stop apologizing for ‘the way that God thinks and acts and what He says is right and wrong.’” Pastor Chan is absolutely right. The rabid LGBTQXYZ movement is trying to browbeat those of us who agree with what God says about their lifestyle, and I’ve had enough. It doesn’t matter how much “pride” they show; their lifestyle choices will remain perverse, wrong, gross, and above (or below) all, sinful.

As parents and grandparents, we must be diligent in teaching our children and grandchildren that what God says is wrong is really wrong. They are being pulled away from the truth on these issues right and left. They are being indoctrinated in our public schools, and they are inundated with messages in the media that celebrate repulsive lifestyles.

When I pray with our children at night before bed, I often pray that God will help us to love what He loves and hate what He hates. We know from His Word that He loves people but hates sin. We need to follow His lead by loving those who are so miserable that they feel the need to look for acceptance and affirmation in perversity. I’ve read stories and watched interviews with people who came out of the evil LGBT lifestyle, and almost without fail, each one who turned to that lifestyle did so because of abusive situations in their childhoods. They felt so damaged and dirty that they turned to those with whom they felt they could be accepted and loved.

Maybe instead of celebrating and defending something that is destructive and harmful and immoral, we as a nation and as states and as communities and as individuals should put more value on counseling these people and praying for them and helping them to find true healing and hope. Some states are going so far as to make it illegal even to provide counseling for people struggling with these issues. What insanity!

Sometimes I feel like we are living in the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, in which everyone sees that the emperor is really naked, but no one wants to speak up and tell him. Finally, a small child honestly and accurately exclaims, “But he hasn’t got anything on.” Even children know the truth about the LGBT agenda. They know that men and women go together and that men aren’t supposed to wear makeup and dresses. Let’s not be duped by the pressure of the crowd into supporting and believing in wickedness.

God said in Proverbs 16:18, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.” The rainbow was God’s idea and a symbol of His mercy for all mankind. Let’s take it back for purposes that are good and noble and pure. When it’s all said and done, I’d much rather stand by God’s side for all of eternity than on the side of political correctness on this earth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Michelle is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new Through Deep Waters: Finding Healing and Hope in Devastating Grief, Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World, and a soon-to-be-released devotional book for moms called Lord, I Need You. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

“Ancient Principles” Birthed the Greatest Nation the World Has Ever Known

(The following is taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America.)

On the same day that the Declaration of Independence became official, an extremely telling event further reveals that our founders understood well the “ancient principles” upon which our republic must be built. On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee—consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams—to design an official seal for the United States. Adams proposed an image of Hercules contemplating the persuasions of Virtue and Sloth.

Franklin proposed a biblical theme:
Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. Motto: Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.
Nineteenth Century Artistic Rendition of Franklin’s Proposed Design for the U.S. Seal

Likewise, Jefferson preferred a biblical theme. According to a letter from John Adams to his wife Abigail, Jefferson proposed:
The Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by day, and a Pillar of Fire by night, and on the other Side Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon Chiefs, from whom We claim the Honour of being descended and whose Political Principles and Form of Government We have assumed.
Our founders understood well that the story of Moses embodied what they hoped would be the story of America. Bruce Feiler, author of America's Prophet: Moses and the American Story, says that, more than any other ancient figure, “Moses embodies the American story. He is the champion of oppressed people; he transforms disparate tribes in a forbidding wilderness into a nation of laws; he is the original proponent of freedom and justice for all.”

The committee agreed on an image of thirteen linked shields, each bearing the designation of a state and the motto “E Pluribus Unum,” along with the all-seeing eye of the Creator inside a triangle. On the reverse side was the biblical scene and the motto “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

However, Congress tabled the matter for several years and eventually adopted the seal and the motto as we have them today. On the reverse side of the seal is a 13-step pyramid, with the year 1776 in Roman numerals along the base. At the top of the pyramid is the Eye of Providence with the Latin motto ANNUIT COEPTIS (“[God] has favored our undertakings”) in the sky above. As the coming Revolutionary War would further prove, God had indeed “favored” the undertakings of the United States. Such favor was no doubt due to the firm faith demonstrated by those who sought to build a nation that, as Puritan leader John Winthrop would envision nearly a century-and-a-half earlier, would serve the world as a “City upon a Hill.”

After defeating the British, the trouble for the new United States of America was far from over. Winning a war was one thing; creating a functioning and thriving nation was quite another. It was becoming clear that the U.S. was not going to survive under the Articles of Confederation. After the Declaration of Independence, the United States of America would wait another 11 years (13 years before it would actually go into effect) for the strong charter of liberty called the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution would provide the enduring legal strength necessary for the U.S. to survive and thrive as a republic.

On December 6, 1787, by unanimous consent, Delaware became the first state to ratify the new Constitution. New Jersey and Georgia soon followed, also by unanimous consent. On December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, Pennsylvania approved the Constitution. In 1788, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, and South Carolina made it eight states.

New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to ratify the Constitution. As I note in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, in order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in favor of the U.S. Constitution, Samuel Langdon, a distinguished theologian and scholar, delivered an “election sermon” entitled, The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States.

After beginning by quoting Deuteronomy 4:5-8 in his sermon, Langdon noted,
[T]he Israelites may be considered as a pattern to the world in all ages; and from them we may learn what will exalt our character, and what will depress and bring us to ruin. Let us therefore look over their constitution and laws, enquire into their practice, and observe how their prosperity and fame depended on their strict observance of the divine commands both as to their government and religion.
Langdon then gave an account of how Moses, upon the wise counsel of his father-in-law Jethro, “the priest of Midian,” set up a republican form of government, with representatives (“leaders,” “rulers,” “judges,” depending on the biblical translation) from groups of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. In addition, 70 elders, or wise-men—a type of national Senate as described by biblical and Jewish scholars—were selected by Moses and approved by the consent of the people.

Langdon added,
A government thus settled on republican principles, required laws; without which it must have degenerated immediately into aristocracy, or absolute monarchy. But God did not leave a people, wholly unskilled in legislation, to make laws for themselves: he took this important matter wholly into His own hands, and beside the moral laws of the two tables, which directed their conduct as individuals, gave them by Moses a complete code of judicial laws.
Langdon goes on to describe how this republican form of government helped the nation of Israel grow from a “mere mob” to a “well regulated nation, under a government and laws far superior to what any other nation could boast!” After detailing Israel’s later struggles—they would eventually “[neglect] their government, [corrupt] their religion, and [grow] dissolute in their morals”—Langston exhorted his fellow citizens to learn from the nation of Israel.
That as God in the course of his kind providence hath given you an excellent constitution of government, founded on the most rational, equitable, and liberal principles, by which all that liberty is secured which a people can reasonably claim, and you are empowered to make righteous laws for promoting public order and good morals; and as he has moreover given you by his son Jesus Christ, who is far superior to Moses, a complete revelation of his will, and a perfect system of true religion, plainly delivered in the sacred writings; it will be your wisdom in the eyes of the nations, and your true interest and happiness, to conform your practice in the strictest manner to the excellent principles of your government, adhere faithfully to the doctrines and commands of the gospel, and practice every public and private virtue. By this you will increase in numbers, wealth, and power, and obtain reputation and dignity among the nations: whereas, the contrary conduct will make you poor, distressed, and contemptible.
On September 21, 1788 the Constitution and the new government of the United States went into effect. Just over three years later, the Bill of Rights would be added. By 1790, when Rhode Island joined the Union, it was unanimous.

On July 4, 1837, in a speech delivered in the town of Newburyport, Massachusetts, John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, and the sixth U.S. President, proclaimed,
Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth?
Witnessing the events of the Revolution as a boy, and no-doubt hearing from his father of the raucous debates that gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then going on to serve his country in many various capacities, John Quincy Adams saw that Christmas and Independence Day were fundamentally linked. He understood well that the Founders took the principles that Christ brought to the world and incorporated them into civil government. This is what makes the U.S. government so distinctive, why it has been so durable, and why, to this day, we are the greatest nation the world has ever known.

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, July 1, 2019

Our So Called “Rights” Are Expensive!

One of the fastest ways to make things more expensive is for the government to provide easy access to money to pay for such things. Nothing illustrates this better than the cost of a college education. As has been widely reported for years now, the costs of a college education have skyrocketed.

A Forbes headline last year noted that the cost of college in the U.S. is increasing nearly eight times faster than wages are increasing. As Forbes reported,
The price of going to college has been increasing since the 1980s. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average cost per year for the 2015-2016 academic year was just over $19,000 for a public four-year university. The figure jumps to nearly $40,000 for a private university. These totals include tuition, fees, room and board. 
The average for all four-year institutions comes out to $26,120 per year. This brings the total cost of attendance to an astronomical total of $104,480 over four years. The comparable cost for the same four-year degree in 1989 was $26,902 ($52,892 adjusted for inflation). This means that between the academic years ending in 1989 and 2016, the cost for a four year degree doubled, even after inflation.
As we’ve also heard often the last few years, these rising costs have resulted in astronomical student loan debt. With the total now north of $1.5 trillion, student loan debt for Americans is nearly equal to the total amount of auto loan debt and credit card debt combined. There’s little doubt that the easy supply of federal funds is almost completely responsible for the catastrophic rise in student loan debt. As Kevin Williamson recently put it,
If you make a few gazillion dollars available to finance tuition payments with underwriting standards a little bit lower than those of the average pawn shop, you create a lot of potential tuition inflation. Another way of saying this is that if Uncle Stupid puts a trillion bucks on the table, there are enough smart people at Harvard to figure out a way to pick it up.
What’s even more stupid—and expensive—than a mountain of easy money from “Uncle Stupid” is for “Uncle (or Aunt) Stupid” to declare wants or needs a “right.” A parade of democrats—including many of the score-plus running for president—have now decided that education is a “right.” Of course, in a leftist’s mind, if something is a “right” then it almost always should be “free.” And of course, as I noted a few years ago, the quickest and surest way to make things more expensive for most of us is for someone in our government to attempt to make such things “free” for some.

If you think a college education is expensive now, just wait until it’s “free.” Big Education already reaps billions of dollars under the current college scam. If democrats are allowed to make college “free,” the college scam will only grow, and U.S. taxpayers will be swindled out of even more money.

Healthcare in the U.S. is the lesson here. Most of the problems with U.S. health care come down to two issues, and of course, both are the result of Big Government and the foolish idea that healthcare is a “right” and that it should often be “free.” First of all, almost no one knows what anything in healthcare really costs—including the doctors who provide it.

As Dr. David Belk, MD, notes in “The True Cost of Healthcare,”
[U]nlike any other business in America, almost all of the financial transactions in healthcare are hidden from the providers as well as the patients. We order tests, procedures and medications to manage our patients, but very few doctors, or other healthcare providers, have any idea how much any of those things cost.
As an indication of the mystery surrounding health care costs in the U.S., Belk highlights medications:
Anytime you go to a store you expect to see all of the products being sold with their prices plainly displayed. When you go to the checkout, that’s the price you expect to be charged. You also expect to be able to check the price of the same or a comparable product in competing stores so you can shop around. That’s how the free market works.
Now imagine your trip to the grocery store were more like a trip to the pharmacy. As Belk points out,
Imagine what it would be like if a grocery store never displayed the price of anything. And the price you’re charged might be totally different from the price the next customer is charged for the same product. In fact, suppose you couldn’t even pick your own groceries. A grocery list would be handed to you by a food expert and you’d be billed based on your particular ‘grocery plan.’ Eggs might cost you $5, the next person $10 and some poor guy who doesn’t have a grocery plan would have to pay $50 for the same carton. Don’t even think about shopping around.
The first issue with health care costs is a result of the second (and Belk’s analogy brings this out): the manner in which we purchase health care differs greatly from how Americans purchase any other item. The vast majority of Americans with health insurance obtain it through a Third Party Payer System—whether an employer or the government. Of course, under Obamacare, the government also has a large say in employer healthcare plans.

This is not how we purchase homes, automobiles, gas, groceries, entertainment, or even other forms of insurance. As usual, when our free-markets falter, look no further than our government. In 1960, Americans paid over 55% of their medical care costs out of pocket, while the government covered just over 21% of such costs. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) in 2010, for the health care system as a whole, Americans paid only 12% out of pocket. For hospital care, it was only 3%, while 97% was paid by a third party.

NCPA also notes that, “Prior to the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health care spending never exceeded 6 percent of gross domestic product. Today [2010] it is 17 percent.” In 2019 that number is about 18%. In other words, once Big Government got deep into our healthcare industry, costs significantly increased.

Along with education and healthcare, many democrats are also now campaigning on the notion that Americans have “a right to a home” or “a right to housing” or that “having a decent and safe place to live should be…a basic human right.” According to the Huffington Post, new legislation proposed by Elizabeth Warren would increase annual spending on the National Housing Trust Fund from $200 million to $4.5 billion. That’s a 2150% increase! Of course, this massive increase would be paid for by higher estate taxes on the “super rich.”

Cory Booker wants to commit a staggering $40 billion a year to the Housing Trust Fund. According to Politico, Booker has also proposed a “Baby Bonds” plan that
would help future generations with down payments by establishing a federally funded savings account with $1,000 for every American child at birth, with future government contributions determined by income. According to Booker’s staff, that plan would give 45 percent of account holders sufficient funding for a 20 percent down payment on the national median starter home.
According to Politico, this plan would cost $134 billion a year—but almost certainly would cost significantly more—and would be paid for “by raising the estate tax and closing ‘loopholes’ that benefit the wealthy.” Of course, as with education and healthcare, a vast increase of taxpayer funds into the housing industry will do nothing to make things more “affordable.”

On the contrary, as we’ve seen with education and healthcare, the more government involvement with housing, the more expensive housing will become. This is almost always true of anything we should be responsible for purchasing for ourselves, but that politicians have declared a “right,” and certainly true of anything politicians want to make “free.”

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Monday, June 17, 2019

Who Will Hollywood Heed: Alyssa Milano or Chief Executives?

As pro-abortion activist Alyssa Milano continues her evil efforts against the unborn, Hollywood filmmakers have a decision to make. Since Milano’s call for a “sex strike” fell flat, she’s now taking a more geographic approach to further the left’s anti-life efforts. In the wake of multiple U.S. states passing laws to protect the most innocent and vulnerable among us—children in the womb—Milano and activist Ben Jackson have created a guide, which includes a color-coded map, in order to inform Hollywood executives in their decisions about where to produce their work.

The guide supposedly informs readers on “where it is safe for women to work.” The map colors U.S. states according to their abortion laws. Red states are where the “right” to kill unborn children is “most threatened,” yellow is where the “right” to kill unborn children is “under threat,” and green states are where the “right” to kill unborn children is “least threatened.”


 
Milano and Jackson declared in a statement,
Following the passage of a number of draconian attacks on a pregnant person’s right to choose in 2019, including those in states in which the motion picture and television industries conduct significant business, it has become apparent that those in our industry need to be able to make informed choices.
Of course, using a non-corrupt worldview, the proper “informed” translation of the guide and map would reveal red states to indicate where it is most dangerous for a child in the womb, yellow would indicate where it is moderately dangerous, and green would indicate states where a child in the womb has the most protection.

The cultural rot that has produced places “where it is safe for women to work” has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of unborn women. In other words, because of the actions of Milano and her ilk, millions of women never got the chance to work—or play on a playground, swim in a pool, dance in a recital, catch a ball, have a trophy taken away by a boy pretending to be a girl, go to school, vote, get married, and so on.

What’s more, according to Life Site News,
Milano is also working with Atlanta, Georgia’s Democrat mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to release a mobile app that filmmakers who remain in Georgia could use to ensure they only do business with people who agree with them. Bottoms enthusiastically supported the idea, and is reportedly working to vet voter data from her own election and calling on local tech companies to help out.

Milano says she was inspired during filming of an episode of the Netflix series Insatiable, where she was horrified to discover the owners of a house they were renting supported Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. “Every time we shoot on location outside of Atlanta, we are funding a hurtful policy,” she said.
Notice again how liberals seek to weaponize politics. This is just another example of why democrats can’t be trusted with political power. Also, Milano and Bottoms’ scheme may not be legal. Georgia’s voter registration data is public, but cannot be used for commercial purposes. Perhaps such an app could be developed for use when filming in nations such as Egypt, Jordan, and the like, where abortion laws are much stricter than in the U.S. Of course, if liberals abandoned their hypocrisy and applied the same standards to Islamic and communist nations as they seek to apply to conservative U.S. states and communities, filming in such nations would cease.

And I suppose Milano only wants people who agree with her pro-abortion radicalism to watch her show. Whether this is the case or not, those who value life shouldn’t waste their time and money on the likes of Milano. I wonder if Hollywood executives, who fork out millions in production costs for TV shows and movies—including healthy incomes to the likes of Milano—and who are expecting a nice return on their investments, share Ms. Milano’s ignorant and dangerous financial views.

Perhaps Hollywood executives should listen to their financial peers instead of Milano and others like her who wish to discriminate violently against the unborn. Every May, Chief Executive magazine publishes its “Best and Worst States for Business” rankings. The rankings are based on survey results from Chief Executive’s CEO readership. Among other things, states are graded on categories such as taxation and regulation, workforce quality, living environment, and so on.

There’s an interesting correlation with the Chief Executive rankings and Milano’s map. According to Chief Executive, in 2019, the top ten best states for doing business are:

1. Texas
2. Florida
3. Tennessee
4. North Carolina
5. Indiana
6. Nevada
7. Arizona
8. South Carolina
9. Ohio
10. Georgia

Of these ten states, six are red—where the “right” to kill the unborn is “most threatened”—on Milano’s map. Of the other four, three are yellow—where the “right” to kill the unborn is “under threat”—and one is green.

The bottom ten states for doing business in 2019 are:

41. Vermont
42. Hawaii
43. Washington
44. Oregon
45. Massachusetts
46. Connecticut
47. New Jersey
48. Illinois
49. New York
50. California

Every single one of these states is green—where the “right” to kill the unborn is “least threatened”—on Milano’s map. In other words, and unsurprisingly, the worst states for doing business are also the most dangerous for a child in the womb. As most well know, all of these states are very “blue” as well, where liberals dominate the politics. In other words, liberalism is bad for business and bad for babies.

As I noted a few weeks ago after Georgia—the “Hollywood of the south”—took great steps to protect the unborn, the political worldview that is good for business is the same political worldview that protects life in the womb, believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, believes that boys don’t belong in girls’ locker rooms or on girls’ sports teams, and so on.

Hollywood filmmakers may well decide to take a “principled” stand in favor of killing the unborn and abide by Milano’s map. Hollywood may well leave states like Georgia. However, as I noted in March of this year, if they hope to find another state that will give them a similar sweet deal on taxes as has Georgia, almost certainly—as last month’s Chief Executive well demonstrates—such a state will also be filled with conservatives and conservative politicians who share Georgia’s views on the unborn.

Again, along with believing in capitalism and the free market, conservatives all over the U.S. generally also believe in the right to life, marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that science determines sex, and so on. We conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—reject the immoral “theology of self” that so permeates Hollywood. We believe that there is a higher Law that all other law and good government must be rooted in and subject to.

Hollywood can abandon conservative states and conservative principles, but it’s going to cost them—in more ways than one.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Friday, June 14, 2019

Democrats: The “Post-Truth” Party

In September of 2008, U.S. Senator, vice-presidential candidate, and democrat Joe Biden was asked his thoughts—“as a Roman Catholic”—on when life begins. Demonstrating a vast ignorance of science, along with an unflattering display of faith, he told NBC’s Tom Brokaw, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” A decade later, using the same “post-truth” relativism, New York Mayor, presidential candidate, and democrat Bill de Blasio, after signing a law that allows New Yorkers to declare their chosen gender on their birth certificate, told a cheering crowd, “You be you. Live your truth. And know that New York City will have your back.”

Likewise, biology-denying Joe Biden, more than once, has recently called “transgender equality” the “civil rights issue of our time.” Recall that because of his efforts and the efforts of other post-truthers in the Obama administration, among other perverse, “creepy,” and ignorant things, boys started using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and military women were declared “at least as strong as men” and officially marked for combat. Soon afterward, boys started—and continue—to take trophies from girls, and military physical standards were lowered.

Also recall that Joe Biden beat his buddy Barack Obama to the punch when it came time for democrats legally to redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity. I don’t mean to pick mostly on “Uncle Joe,” but since he is the current front-runner in the democrats’ race to see who can deny the most truth the fastest—and become the presidential nominee for the post-truth party—I thought it only fitting to highlight his post-truth accomplishments.

Of course, Joe Biden is far from alone in such thinking. Virtually every democrat in America shares Biden’s post-truth views on life, marriage, sex, biology, the climate, and so on.

Thus, no one should be surprised that Joe Biden has now flip-flopped on the Hyde Amendment. In addition to subsidizing abortion through the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, this new position by Biden would force further taxpayer investment in the killing of unborn human beings. But this is where the Democrat Party now is in 2019, because such further moral capitulation is where post-truth thinking always leads.

Post-truth thinking is why Barack Obama flip-flopped on marriage. Post-truth thinking is why Barack Obama—along with several other modern democrats—argued for infanticide. Post-truth thinking is why a quarter of a century ago (in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), Justice Anthony Kennedy declared, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Thus, no one should’ve been surprised by Kennedy’s post-truth-informed vote on marriage.

Post-truth thinking is why the perpetually pale-faced Elizabeth Warren for decades falsely claimed she was of Native American descent. Post-truth thinking is also why she got away with it for decades. Most anyone grounded in the truth would’ve seen through Fauxcahontas’s fraud and would’ve called her on it. This says much about the post-truth worldview that dominates the academic and media institutions who’ve enabled Warren’s career.

Post-truth thinking is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk can claim that because of the man-made climate change myth—a result of the “greatest scandal in the history of science” which has led to “the greatest scientific fraud of all time”—the earth is soon doomed unless we adopt a socialist green agenda. Post-truth thinking gave us the Green New Deal, which, though democrats presented it as realistic public policy, as John Zmirak correctly notes, it’s nothing more than “a delusional wish list, a ransom note pasted together with clipped out words from storybooks and glued in place with bubblegum.”

Post-truth thinking is why Bernie Sanders can claim that his version of socialism will work when all others have failed. Only in a post-truth world can the failures of socialism play out right before our eyes, while the American left claims, “Venezuela didn’t collapse because of socialism. It’s a story about epic mismanagement.” In the 20th century alone, with no exceptions, dozens of socialist nations “mismanaged” their way into enslaving and murdering millions. Only a post-truth mindset would fail to learn from such.

Only academic campuses dominated by democrats and corrupted by post-truth thinking would censor speakers and opinions rooted in a conservative or biblical worldview. Truth-telling professors as well as truth-telling campus guests are paying the price for contradicting the dominant post-truth worldview present at virtually every college and university in the U.S. This “college apocalypse”—as Steven Hayward has called it—has turned educational institutions into little more than day care centers.

It was a post-truth mindset that fueled the vile attempt to derail the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Aided and abetted by the like-minded media, with a mountain of lies, Senate democrats engaged in one of the worst episodes in American political history. Only post-truthers clinging to an evil post-truth agenda would take decades-old uncorroborated accusations and treat them seriously in something as grave as a Supreme Court nomination.

Lastly, and of course, only a political party corrupted by a post-truth worldview would attempt to reverse a presidential election by inventing a Trump-Russia-collusion conspiracy and then invent the crimes to attempt to justify their failed coup. Only post-truthers would spend two-plus years and millions of dollars investigating an incident they know did not occur—all in the name of undoing an election result they didn’t like. Only a post-truth media would devote millions of words and thousands of TV hours in support of such a farce.

Today’s democrats certainly don’t hold a monopoly on post-truth politics and thought, but clearly they are corrupted by it to a greater extent than almost any other collection of individuals one could find. As noted apologist William Lane Craig put it when writing about the Christian perspective on homosexuality, “Today so many people think of right and wrong, not as matters of fact, but as matters of taste.” In a post-truth world, taste determines truth. And if taste determines truth, then we’re all at the mercy of whoever’s in charge, and that’s why today’s democrats—as they are currently constituted—should not be in charge of anything. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

With Abortion and Socialism, Democrats Are Peddling Slavery Again

In 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President, the newly-formed Republican Party controlled the U.S. House, Senate, and presidency. As was the case with most every state in what would become the Confederacy, my home state of Georgia cited slavery, republicans, and the election of Lincoln as its reasons for seceding:
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [the republicans] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [who voted to secede]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. . . . The prohibition of slavery in the territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. . . . [T]he abolitionists and their allies in the northern states have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions.
The Confederate States of America was formed at the Montgomery Convention in February, 1861. For the southern states—and anyone else in the world paying attention—the agenda of the newly formed (and electorally victorious) Republican Party agenda was clear. Every party platform since the creation of the Republican Party had forcefully denounced slavery. After the infamous Dred Scott ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the subsequent Republican platform strongly condemned the ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. On the other hand, the corresponding Democrat platforms praised the Dred Scott ruling and condemned all efforts to end slavery in the U.S.

With its recent unashamed embrace of socialism—they used to avoid such talk—along with its decades-long devotion to killing children in the womb, the modern Democrat Party is again aligning itself with ideologies and institutions that have little to no regard for vast swaths of humanity. Since the dawn of the twentieth century, socialism—the economic system of communist countries—and abortion are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings.

As Breitbart reported late last year, with nearly 42 million killed in their mothers’ wombs, abortion was the leading cause of death worldwide in 2018. Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, the abortion holocaust has claimed the lives of over 60 million American children. Given such horrific numbers, with unborn children being the most innocent and helpless among us, and given that a mother’s womb should be one of the safest places in the universe, the plight of the unborn is the greatest civil rights battle of all time.

Yet the modern Democrat Party has never been more hostile to unborn children. As soon as they took control of the U.S. House this year, sex-worshipping democrats wasted little time in revealing their wicked and perverse priorities. In an attempt to end the partial government shutdown, democrats’ initial legislative funding proposal sent to the republican-controlled Senate repealed the pro-life “Mexico-City Policy” and provided $37.5 million for the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund.

Days later, democrats in New York stood and cheered after Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation that allows for the killing of children in the womb right up to the moment of birth. In other words, the culture and ideology that gave us the gruesome Kermit Gosnell passed legislation that will only create more infanticidal fools.

Not to be outdone in their efforts to kill the most innocent and helpless among us, soon after the New York infanticide bill was signed into law, Virginia democrats proposed their version of an after-birth abortion bill. Distracting from his blackface scandal, Virginia’s governor, democrat Ralph Northam, infamously defended the legislation. Republican Senator Ben Sasse put it well when he noted,
In just a few years pro-abortion zealots went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘keep the newborns comfortable while the doctor debates infanticide.’
That democrats are now debating infanticide shouldn’t be very surprising, as no less than Barack Obama himself helped push them along this evil path. Hoping to follow Mr. Obama as the next democrat president, virtually every democrat candidate for U.S. President supports what could only be described as infanticide. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, was exactly right when she asked and answered:
How can the "Dream" survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.
As the Nazis did with the Jews, and as pro-slavery Americans did with black Africans, modern abortion apologists have de-humanized those they find undesirable or those whose lives they want complete control over. On Fox News’ The Story, author and commentator Rachel Campos-Duffy compared abortion to slavery:
Our country has been divided since [1973] when Roe vs. Wade was passed, and I believe that in my lifetime, the only way this is going to be resolved is Roe v. Wade [being] overturned. It’s going to go back to the states because this issue is as fundamental as an issue was back in the middle of the 1800s called slavery. This is an issue about who gets to decide who is human enough so they can do whatever they want with that person, or the person they’re saying is not a person. This is such a fundamental human rights issue.
Like abortion, socialism is a “fundamental human rights issue.” In the last 125 years, only socialism rivals abortion in the slaughter of human beings, and like abortion, socialism is a form of slavery. In 1884, in his seminal work The Man Versus the State, philosopher and political theorist Herbert Spencer warned of “The Coming Slavery.” He wrote,
All socialism involves slavery…The degree of his slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or a society. If, without option, he has to labour for the society, and receives from the general stock such portion as the society awards him, he becomes a slave to the society. Socialistic arrangements necessitate an enslavement of this kind…There seems no getting people to accept the truth…that the welfare of a society and the justice of its arrangements are at bottom dependent on the characters of its members; and that improvement in neither can take place without that improvement in character which results from carrying on peaceful industry under the restraints imposed by an orderly social life. The belief, not only of the socialists but also of those so-called Liberals who are diligently preparing the way for them, is that by due skill an ill-working humanity may be framed into well-working institutions. It is a delusion. The defective natures of citizens will show themselves in the bad acting of whatever social structure they are arranged into. There is no political alchemy by which you can get golden conduct out of leaden instincts. [Emphasis mine.]
One hundred and thirty-five years ago, Spencer—one of the most widely read philosophers of his time and “the single most famous European intellectual in the closing decades of the nineteenth century”—warned the world of what socialists would bring and who was “diligently preparing the way for them.”

Nevertheless, thanks mostly to socialist regimes, the twentieth century was the world’s bloodiest. From China’s Zedong and the Soviet Union’s Stalin to Cuba’s Castro, the twentieth century is littered with godless socialists who attempted to enslave and murder their way to Utopia. Tens of millions died in the forced-labor camps that socialism requires. Tens of millions more died in the poverty and starvation that socialism inevitably produces.

Many leading democrats today unashamedly embrace socialism, including some running for president. Those democrats who have yet to stoop to praising socialism openly have many policy proposals that are indistinguishable from what one would find in a socialist state. Yet modern American democrats insist their version of state control of most every facet of our lives will be different.

Tragically, as has been the case with abortion, many Americans seem to have bought into democrats’ socialist propaganda. According to a recent Gallup poll, a growing number of Americans have embraced at least some form of socialism. This is mostly due to the increasing number of democrats who view socialism favorably. As the same Gallup poll also notes, since 2010, a majority of democrats have had a favorable view of socialism. A similar Gallup poll last year revealed that a significantly larger number of democrats (57% to 47%) now prefer (“have a positive view of”) socialism over capitalism.

All the information we now have at our finger tips—including the nasty scenes from Venezuela—and it seems the lure of spending other people’s money—like the lure of (supposed) sex without consequences—still proves too much for too many. It took a civil war to rid the U.S. of the institution of slavery. Let us hope and pray that, in spite of what some are forecasting, it doesn’t get to that with abortion or socialism. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Why This White Woman Voted for Brian Kemp

In 1951, a white baby girl was born in a small hospital in Ogbomosho, Nigeria, West Africa. She was raised among the Nigerian people by missionary parents—parents who dedicated their lives to ministering to and sharing the Gospel with people of color. My mom’s family came back to the States when she was a teenager, and they settled here in Georgia, where her parents taught at various colleges and public schools. She met my dad in beautiful Cleveland, Georgia when they were both in their mid-teens. They married at 18, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Mom loved Nigeria and the Nigerian people. She considered that “home” for many years after she returned to the U.S. As far as I know—and I’ve known her for 45 years now—there isn’t a racist bone in her body. My dad was a pastor and counselor for decades before he was killed tragically in a DUI in 2015. My parents love people—of all colors and shapes and sizes—and they instilled that love in their four children. My husband Trevor Thomas and I are, in turn, teaching our four children to love God and to love all people as well.

I turned 18 in 1991, and I was excited beyond words to participate in my first presidential election the following year. I campaigned for George H.W. Bush. I made signs at the local Republican Party headquarters to help welcome him to Gainesville on his Whistle Stop Train Tour. I cried when he lost to Bill Clinton.

In the 1996 election cycle, I campaigned early on for a brilliant, articulate, conservative Harvard PhD and United Nations Ambassador by the name of Alan Keyes. Of course he was—and still is—a black man. Sadly, Keyes didn’t make it out of the primaries. Herman Cain and Ben Carson are other “people of color” who I believe would have made outstanding presidents, and I would have supported them wholeheartedly if they had made it to their respective general elections.

In last year’s race for governor, we the people of the great state of Georgia were faced with a choice, though not a difficult choice at all, in my humble opinion—a conservative white man or a liberal black woman. Imagine for a moment that the characteristics had been reversed. Had Stacy Abrams been a pro-life, pro-small business, pro-biblical marriage, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-liberty candidate, and Kemp had been the socialist, pro-abortionist, anti-gun, anti-small business candidate, I would have crawled to the polls on my hands and knees, if necessary, to vote for Abrams.

However, Kemp is the conservative and Abrams is the liberal. It’s as simple as that. It matters not a twit that he is a white man and she is a black woman. I will vote for a candidate with conservative values over a liberal candidate at any time of the day or week or year. I couldn’t care less what color the candidate’s skin happens to be. It truly is what’s on the inside that counts.

Apparently, the Women’s March leader, Linda Sarsour, blames me for Georgia’s recent “Heartbeat Bill,” which outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. On May 14, she tweeted,
While folks are debating tactics to respond to Georgia’s heartbeat bill, let’s remember that 76% of the white Women electorate in GA (more than white men) voted for Brian Kemp over Stacey Abrams. That’s where the work needs to happen. WW continue to uphold the patriarchy.
Unfortunately, Sarsour’s racist rant here is typical rhetoric from today’s left. I wish we could move on to more important issues that affect all Americans instead of dwelling on such insignificant differences as skin color. But it seems as though democrats will continue to play the race card in order to win voters to their side and gain political power. Since there is no substance to Sarsour’s argument, she is forced to stoop to slimy, deceptive tactics like race-baiting.

So yes, Linda Sarsour, this white woman voted unashamedly for Brian Kemp, and I would most definitely do it again, in a heartbeat. But it wasn’t to uphold “the patriarchy,” as you foolishly proclaim, and neither was it because Kemp is white. You completely miss the forest for the trees when you tout that ignorant garbage. As long as and whenever I have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who stands for truth, justice (for all—born and unborn), and the American way, you can bet your liberal bottom borrowed dollar that he or she will have my support. Red and yellow, black and white, we are all precious in the God’s sight, but some are much more deserving of my vote than others.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new Through Deep Waters: Finding Healing and Hope in Devastating Grief and Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.


Tuesday, May 14, 2019

When Infanticidal Democrats Are Accidentally Correct on Abortion

Recent words by notorious democrats again prove the old adage: even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, we have had two democrats in less than two weeks accidentally speaking truth to one of the gravest moral issues of our time.

First of all, we have Alabama state representative John Rogers (D). At the beginning of this month, the republican-controlled Alabama House overwhelmingly passed (74-3) pro-life legislation that would make abortion a felony except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. The bill will likely not become law, as it will probably die in the Alabama Senate. Aware of this, pro-life lawmakers hope to use the legislation as a means to overturn Roe.

In debating the bill, while attempting to defend the indefensible—the killing of unborn children—representative Rogers made clear the democrats’ position when it comes to the most helpless and innocent among us when he declared,
Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.
Note that Rogers here provides us with several bits of rare clarity when it comes to democrats and the unborn. Repeatedly using the word “kill,” Rogers reminds us what an abortion actually results in: the death of a human being. As a popular pro-life refrain goes, “If it isn’t a life, then why do you have to kill it?”

Also, Representative Rogers failed to resort to the anthropomorphically ambiguous language so common among those who wish to sanitize what is really happening when an abortion occurs. Instead, Rogers made the mistake of referring to unborn children as “kids.” To protect the “right” to kill children in the womb, for decades those corrupted by liberalism have sought to dehumanize the unborn.

Thus, we often hear children in the womb described as a “zygote,” “embryo,” or “fetus.” Though these terms are medically correct, the left employs such language in order to avoid using the more humanizing words such as “baby,” “child,” or “kid.” What’s more, in order to hide their evil behavior toward children in the womb and to further dehumanize the unborn, the left will often abandon medically accurate terminology for unborn human beings and simply make stuff up.

In 2015, writing about the scandal involving Planned Parenthood and the selling of baby parts, Jen Gunter of The New Republic declared, “These are not ‘baby parts.’” She prefers that the “tissue specimen” be referred to, not as a fetus or an embryo, but as a “product of conception.” Gunter declared that the term “baby” doesn’t apply until birth.

Likewise, on CNN recently, breaking trend with democrats who have been accidentally correct on life in the womb, while debating “heartbeat bills” that have become law across the U.S., former Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn—a democrat, of course—said,
When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.
Thus, the so-called “party of science” again reveals just how much stupidity they will stoop to in order to justify their perverse sexual agenda.

Speaking of stupid, Alyssa Milano has tweeted again. Rightfully ignoring the threats of the ignorant Hollywood elite, Governor Brian Kemp recently signed Georgia’s version of a fetal heartbeat bill into law. Like so many others on the Hollywood left, because of the favorable tax laws passed by Georgia conservatives, Milano finds herself working in Georgia. Being a full-fledged member of the sex-crazed ignorant Hollywood elite, Milano can’t seem to help interjecting herself into Georgia politics.

After Governor Kemp signed the heartbeat bill into law, Milano decided it was time for action. On May 10, through her Twitter account, Milano called for a “sex strike.” She tweeted:
Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.
It seems that liberals are more clueless about biology than we thought. Seemingly unaware of the irony of her call, pro-life conservatives on Twitter soon clued her in:

Of course, the world would be a much better place if Milano and her ilk—men and women alike—would remain on a “sex strike,” at least until they are in a committed marital relationship. Sadly, this is not the plan. As a Milano supporter in the New York Post reveals, the real desire for pro-abortionists is to turn states like Georgia into states like New York. Because, “if you’re in a place where you can still have abortions, like New York State,” then one can “f— all you want!”

And thus, we see Ms. Milano produce even more unintended truth from the left! Without stating so in such clear terms, for decades the left has sold their wicked sexual agenda upon the notion that if voters will just elect democrats, then one can “f— all you want!” This has resulted in not only a war on the unborn, but a war on marriage, the family, and the ultimate target of the modern left: the truth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Georgia Media Engages in Polling Propaganda

In order to further the liberal agenda on the legalized killing of children still in their mothers’ wombs and to help elect more democrats, the largest newspaper in the state of Georgia—The Atlanta-Journal Constitution (AJC)—has engaged in polling propaganda. Of course, like virtually all U.S. newspapers, given that the AJC is dominated by those with a liberal worldview, this should surprise no one. However, it doesn’t mean we should let them get away with it.

As I noted in a recent column, earlier this year the Georgia legislature passed the LIFE Act—often dubbed a “fetal heartbeat” bill. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has yet to sign the bill, but he is widely expected to do so. Given that protecting the so-called “right” to kill the unborn is sacred to the modern left, liberals across my home state of Georgia have gone to great lengths to demonize and discourage anyone willing to stand up for the most helpless and innocent among us.

In an effort to discourage the pro-life movement and to paint the U.S. as more pro-abortion than it really is, for years now abortion apologists—especially those in the media and the Democrat Party—have promoted polls that supposedly show overwhelming support for the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. For example, late last summer, after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ)/NBC News poll purported to show 71 percent of Americans were against “completely overturn[ing]” Roe.

However, such polls are almost always seriously flawed. As Michael J. New noted at the time,

The survey question began by stating that Roe v. Wade established a right to an abortion, “at least in the first three months of pregnancy.” It then asked respondents if they would like to see the Supreme Court “completely overturn” Roe v. Wade. As such, many respondents likely concluded that Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in the first trimester and a reversal of Roe would ban first-trimester abortions.

On the question of overturning Roe, the recent AJC poll uses the exact same deceptive language as the WSJ/NBC poll. The question reads,
In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision or not?
Unsurprisingly, poll results showed that, to the above question, 70 percent answered “no.” Subsequently, on its website (and I’m assuming in the print edition as well) the AJC ran the headline “AJC poll: Strong support for Roe.” The first sentence of the article declared, “Seven of 10 Georgia voters say they oppose overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to an abortion, according to a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll.”

The article made no mention of how polling subjects were asked about the Roe decision. To warn readers about this, I noted as much in the comments section of the article. Shortly thereafter, my comment was deleted, and soon after that, the AJC website posted an article that contained the poll questions and results.

Given that we are 46 years removed from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe, many Americans are ignorant about the fact that Roe v. Wade deals with abortion. Thus, pollsters are left to try to explain the decision in one or two sentences. Therefore, we get inaccurate polling results on the Roe decision and on abortion. As was noted in National Review last year,
A Pew Research Center poll taken in 2013 found that only 62 percent of respondents were aware that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion. Seventeen percent thought Roe v. Wade dealt with some other public-policy issue and 20 percent were unfamiliar with the decision. Furthermore, even many who realize Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion fail to understand the full implications of the decision. Many wrongly think that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in [a] national ban on abortion, instead a reversal of Roe would return the issue to the states.
What’s more, while the recent AJC poll supposedly showed overwhelming support for the Roe decision, respondents were about evenly split on their support for Georgia’s LIFE Act. Forty-three percent said they somewhat or strongly supported the bill while 48 percent said they somewhat or strongly opposed it. These results are more in line with what more sophisticated abortion polling reveals.

For example, consider last year’s Gallup poll on abortion. On the question of whether the Supreme Court should overturn Roe, 28 percent said yes and 64 percent said no. However, more detailed questioning reveals that Americans are not as much in favor of Roe as a simple question on overturning Roe might indicate. When asked whether an abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, “When the woman does not want the child for any reason” (the vast majority of abortions are performed because the child would be an inconvenience), 45 percent said it should be legal, while 53 percent said it should not be legal.

When the same question is asked about the last three months of pregnancy, only 20 percent said abortion should be legal, while 77 percent said it should not be legal. Likewise, in the last three months of pregnancy, when asked about whether abortion should be legal if the child would be “born mentally disabled” or “born with Down Syndrome,” the vast majority thought abortion should be illegal (61 percent to 35 percent and 68 percent to 29 percent, respectively) in such cases.

However, under the court’s current interpretation of Roe—a legal and moral abomination— laws that would restrict abortion according to the above opinions would almost certainly be struck down. In other words, because of the pro-abortion hyperbole regularly thrown around by liberals, many Americans simply don’t understand that for U.S. laws to reflect such opinions, Roe would have to go.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Guess What’s Worse Than “Creepy Uncle Joe.”

It turns out that handsy Ol’ Uncle Joe really is a bit “creepy” after all. We can all say that, now that enough democrats have told us this is the case. At least this is the current take of certain presidential-minded democrats who’ve decided that they no longer want or need Joe Biden. If these democrats were in their right minds, they would realize that loveable Ol’ Joe—with his hair sniffing and back rubbing and face pecking—is among the least of their problems.

Nevertheless, right now many in the democrat party simply want to be done with Biden because of “inappropriate touching.” This is the man who served in their party as Vice President for eight years and as a U.S. Senator for 36 years. By inappropriate touching, they mean things like hand-holding, forehead-to-forehead conversations, holding women “for a beat too long” at receptions, and the like. No one is alleging anything criminal, nor is anyone using the phrase “sexual harassment.”

What’s more, very little we are hearing from Biden’s accusers and their accomplices is new information. It seems clear that these accusations against Biden are little more than a political ploy by some democrats who hope to rid themselves of what they see as an old straight white man who doesn’t seem quite hip or radical enough to be their presidential nominee. As Brent Bozell and Tim Graham recently put it,
The Democrat-media complex has suddenly decided that Joe Biden has a creepiness problem. Why now? Why not when he was vice president for eight years? Does anyone remember the allegedly fierce White House press corps pelting the press secretary with questions, asking when then-President Obama would tell his understudy to stop putting his hands on women -- and little girls -- and putting his face uncomfortably close to theirs?
In spite of the efforts of his fellow democrats who want the “creepy old man” label to force him to just go away, Joe Biden seems to be leaning toward making them beat him the old fashioned way: at the ballot box—or at least Biden hopes to force his opponents to have to work hard in rigging the primaries. Whether Biden runs, or whether he gets the nomination, the efforts against him remind us that democrats remain blind to the real problems within their party.

For example, far worse than space-invading Biden is biology-denying Biden. Recall, more than once, Joe Biden has called “transgender equality” the “civil rights issue of our time.” Because of his efforts and the efforts of those like-minded in the Obama administration, among other perverse—or “creepy”—things, boys started using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Soon afterward, boys started—and continue—to take trophies from girls.

In addition, because of their lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, again ignoring sound science, morality, and common sense, the Obama-Biden administration lifted the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations. In other words, time and again Joe Biden and his like-minded ilk—which includes pretty much every democrat running for president—continue to ignore the truth about something as fundamental as the difference between males and females. They turned their wicked ignorance into disastrous policy for the nation. Quite a bit worse than serial hair sniffing, don’t you think?

Also recall that biblically-ignorant Biden preceded Barack Obama and the Supreme Court in voicing his support for legally redefining marriage. To prove his apostasy, Biden has even officiated a same-sex “wedding.” As if a legal redefinition of the oldest and most foundational institution in the history of humanity wasn’t enough of a blow to Christianity, in 2012 the Obama-Biden administration issued its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

Through these other nefarious efforts, Biden, Obama, et al have regularly waged war on Christianity and religious liberty. Ignoring the centuries-old beliefs of those who don’t share his perverse modern views on marriage and sexuality, as Vice President, Biden strongly supported passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As Ryan Anderson put it,
[ENDA] tramples First Amendment rights and unnecessarily impinges on citizens’ right to run their businesses the way they choose. The proposed legislation does not protect equality before the law; instead it would create special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.
Again, virtually every democrat—including those running for president—share such oppressive views on Christianity and religious liberty. Instead of making life more difficult for us Christians, I would prefer a hug from Joe Biden.

Killing newborn children who happen to escape the deadly instruments of an abortionist and emerge alive from their mothers’ wombs is far worse than anything a moral person would deem “creepy.” Yet modern democrats are actually making the case for what could be described as “post-birth abortions.” Infanticidal democrats are concerned that Joe Biden is not sufficiently devoted to the cause of killing the unborn—or even the newborn, if necessary. It seems Mr. Biden is a bit too “creepy,” but not quite heartless enough for modern democrats.

If you would be “creeped out” by someone coming into your home and stealing your stuff, then socialism is probably not your thing. Nevertheless, democrats’ embrace of all things socialist is only rivaled by their lust to make legal nearly every perversion imaginable in the sexual realm.

Whether the “New Green Deal”—supported by a majority of leading democrats—or Medicare for all—supported by most of the democrats’ 2020 presidential field, along with an “aggressive and expanding” group of over 100 Congressional democrats—in the vain pursuit of utopia, modern democrats continue to promise to spend other people’s money. As I noted recently, for a picture of just how worse than “creepy” socialism can be, take a look at Seattle, San Francisco, or Venezuela.

So we have hair smelling, hand-holding, and hugging vs. socialism, infanticide, and those who can’t—or refuse to—tell the difference between males and females. Given such, I’ll take “creepy” over the democrats’ platform any day.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com