Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Saturday, February 23, 2019

Fake Hate, Fake Collusion: All in the Name of Destroying the Trump Presidency

In more ways than one, hate-crime hoaxer Jussie Smollet is far from alone. He’s simply the latest in a long line of unhinged leftists with evil intent who are bent on destroying Donald Trump’s presidency. Be it fake hate or fake collusion, for nearly three years now, Donald Trump has been the target of an unprecedented campaign meant to end his candidacy and later, after his election as the 45th President of the United States, his presidency.

After the recent revelations of former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, there should now be no doubt as to the existence of a nefarious “Deep State.” As revealed by McCabe himself in his soon-to-be-published book, in May of 2017, angered by President Trump’s firing of his boss, then FBI director James Comey, McCabe and his like-minded cronies at the FBI and the Justice Department foolishly plotted as to how they might invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the duly elected President from office.

As former Clinton pollster and chief strategist Mark Penn recently put it,
The most egregious anti-democratic actions ever taken by the what can now fairly be called the Deep State are confirmed with the publication of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book detailing how the FBI and Justice Department plotted to remove President Trump from office for firing FBI Director James Comey.

Justice Department and FBI officials spied on U.S. citizens with false warrants, gave a pass to one presidential campaign with a predetermined investigation, investigated another political campaign on the basis of no verified evidence, and illegally leaked information on investigations. They discussed wiretapping and using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove President Trump, and appointed a special counsel as a retaliatory move for Comey’s firing.
The Manhattan Institute’s Roger Kimball is right, “this plot to destroy a presidency is the most serious political scandal in our history.” Kimball notes,
[P]eople in the FBI (aided and abetted by elements in the CIA and the Obama administration) decided that they didn’t like the person who had been elected President of the United States. Their anger and frustration boiled over when the President had the temerity to fire their man, James Comey. So they plotted to get rid of him.

The FBI didn’t like the President, so they plotted to remove him from office. That is the irreducible minimum, class, that you should take away from this whole sordid lesson. Top figures in the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not approve of the President. Therefore, they took steps to destroy him. Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, several times offered to wear a wire to entrap the President.
“The most serious political scandal in our history” and, at best, most of the media yawns. At its worst, the left-wing media—of course, the vast majority of print and TV media—aided and abetted this despicable, deceitful plot. The ever-elusive Trump-Russia election collusion unicorn—like the always looming but never present global warming apocalypse—has led the left-wing media into dozens of significant falsehoods, which has led to thousands of fake media reports.

The left isn’t content merely to smother the airwaves and the internet with “Trump stole the election!” People are getting indicted, and more often than not, they are “indictments in search of a crime” as Alan Dershowitz recently put it upon the arrest of Roger Stone. As many have pointed out for nearly two years now, you need a crime to appoint a special counsel. You don’t appoint a special counsel and then hope that certain individuals will commit crimes for which they can be indicted, fined, bankrupted, or even jailed.

Yet almost every crime that has resulted in a Mueller indictment has come as the result of his investigation. Lying to investigators, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice—virtually all such crimes occurred after Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Of course, this doesn’t bother men like McCabe.

As Byron York reports, “after the Comey firing, McCabe was determined to cement in place a Trump-Russia investigation that could not be stopped by the president.” What investigation—or, as York notes, “investigations”—can be stopped when the investigator is creating his own crimes? As York also points out, an excerpt from McCabe’s book declares that he wanted an “overall review” of the FBI’s Trump-Russia work.

McCabe wrote, “I want to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away.” The ongoing Trump-Russia-collusion “investigation” proves, getting Rod Rosenstein to appoint Mueller makes McCabe look very successful in this regard.

Of course, long prior to Mueller’s appointment, Trump-haters within the FBI, such as lying McCabe, and the adulterous Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were scheming of ways to end Trump’s presidency. As Business Insider reminds us,
  • Peter Strzok, the second-highest ranking counterintelligence agent at the FBI, was involved at key junctures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia probe.
  • Strzok was reportedly the official responsible for changing language in former FBI director James Comey's statement describing Clinton's private email server use from “grossly negligent” — which could carry criminal penalties — to “extremely careless.”
  • Strzok was also the FBI agent who officially signed off on the bureau's decision to launch its Russia investigation in July 2016.
Most now well know that in order to justify his investigation into the Trump campaign, Strzok relied on the infamous Steele “dossier.” As The Federalist recently noted,
[T]he so-called Steele dossier was always the impetus for the Russia investigation. But calling this a “dossier” is too generous. This is a Word document that was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, written using paid, shady, and unknown Russians. This Word document was used to spy on the opposing party’s presidential campaign, despite the fact that nothing in the document that wasn’t public information checked out. McCabe and company wanted to believe the dossier. But that’s all they ever had.
Anyone who has read the House Intelligence memo released just over a year ago now knows that:
  • Christopher Steele “was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
  • Steele “maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein.”
  • Steele admitted to Ohr that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
  • “During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump…” and Ohr’s wife’s research was “paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via Fusion GPS.”
  • McCabe testified before the House Intelligence Committee that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” Yet the initial FISA application ignored or concealed Steele’s anti-trump motivations.
Of course, Strzok and others in the FBI/DOJ shared Steele’s desperation and deceit. This led to the so-called “insurance policy” that was and is the Trump-Russia-collusion investigation.

This unprecedented attempt at a political coup to unseat a U.S. President goes far beyond rogue elements in the FBI and the DOJ. As much of the above reveals, Hillary Clinton’s and the DNC’s fingerprints are all over this political travesty. But very little of the above—including what we’ve heard from McCabe these last few days—is new information. Andrew McCabe is trying to sell books, and CBS was after ratings.

Along with the collusion-deluded, impeachment-obsessed political hacks in the FBI, DOJ, DNC, and the Clinton campaign, we have the collusion-deluded, impeachment-obsessed hacks in the mainstream media. What is most telling in McCabe’s friendly 60 Minutes interview is the gross media malpractice that continues to plague us, especially with everything Trump.

As Jussie Smollet, Jim Carrey, Kathy Griffin, Ashley Judd, Amy Schumer, Madonna, Eminem, Meryl Streep, Robert de Niro, Jimmy Kimmel, Nathan Phillips, Facebook fools, Twitter trolls, and the like daily demonstrate: gross media malpractice in the name of destroying President Trump goes far beyond the left-wing news media.

Not content with making millions by merely entertaining us, and deluded by the notion that their fame has made their political opinions important, hate-filled—and hate-hoaxing—entertainers have used their celebrity to regularly attack the President and his supporters. Because of their fame, these hate merchants gain the attention of like-minded people and organizations who have control of television cameras, websites, and newspapers.

The Smollet hoax and the Covington Catholic defamation well demonstrate that these hate merchants will take nearly any opportunity—no matter how flimsy the accusations—to impugn President Trump. Thus, instead of focusing on the real unparalleled story here, the hate is further amplified, and the efforts to overthrow the results of the 2016 presidential election continue. Yet President Trump remains, and support seems steadfast. In other words, thus far, the coup has failed. Victor Davis Hanson is right, “Shame on all these failed conspirators and their abettors, and may these immoral people finally earn a long deserved legal [political] and moral reckoning.”

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Friday, February 15, 2019

Democrats in Dogface

To be fair, I’m not exactly sure of the political affiliation of men who enjoy “rolling around on floor mats with each other” while wearing dog masks, along with “collars, and tail-shaped butt plugs, barking and sniffing” just like real dogs. However, I can be reasonably certain that such deceived perverts would regularly cast their ballots for, and otherwise lend support to, the political party that has aided and abetted the mainstreaming of and the legal and political protections for their wickedness.

I’m not sure what’s more disgusting: homosexuals literally treating each other like dogs—almost certainly an uncommon practice among what is already a very small fraction of the population—or the liberal media painting such perversion as a “celebration of diversity.” As the democrat stooges at Slate approvingly report,
Mentorship in the LGBTQ world comes in all forms, whether it’s drag mothers teaching queens to contour and make it in the biz, or leather daddies showing their sub the ropes—literally. But these sorts of mentor relationships often extend to areas of life beyond craft and kink. As Turbo [one of the homosexual “dogs”] points out, a lot of queer people aren’t raised by queer people. They aren’t taught how to survive and thrive in the world as themselves when it comes to personal growth, relationships, or careers, since society is predominately straight and cis. Many benefit from turning to more experienced people to help show them the way. Although a BDSM [dog] pack might seem an unlikely vehicle for mentorship, for the Fog City Pack, it works.
In other words, “mentorship” in the homosexual world comes in all forms of evil. What’s more, the modern left wants you and your children to learn about it and embrace it as healthy and normal. As previously noted recently, across the U.S., we already have “Drag Queen Story Time.” This immorality has found its way into not only public libraries, but public schools as well. In these settings, where the target audience is children between three and eight years old, the impressionable youngsters are taught such falsehoods as “there’s no such thing as boy and girl things.”

Rod Dreher is right to ask, how long before the “Fog City fleabags” want to host “Pup Play Story Hour” at their local public school or library? And if they seek to do such, in the name of “diversity, tolerance, and non-discrimination,” how long before democrats rush to defend and demand their “right” to do so?

Just last week, New Jersey Governor, democrat Phil Murphy, signed into law a bill “requiring the state’s public middle and high schools to teach so-called LGBT history.” As Life Site News recently reported,
“This is to absolutely saturate society on all levels and to begin to teach, which is to recruit, all human beings regardless of age and gender, into the LGBT religion,” Greg Quinlan, founder of Garden State Families, told LifeSiteNews…

Murphy promised during his campaign he would promote the LGBTQ agenda, and advocates of Bill S1569 claim it will benefit LGBT students…

But Quinlan, himself a former homosexual who testified against the bill in committee, says the law is intended to “inculcate” acceptance of the “LGBT religion.”

… “On a civil rights basis, you need to include all sexual minorities, including ex-gays, which it does not,” he told LifeSiteNews.
Peter LaBarbara warns that students will not be taught “legitimate history” under the New Jersey law. He adds, “We’re going to get all the gay history from people who have a vested interest in normalizing homosexuality. Unfortunately, a lot of kids won’t understand they’re getting gay propaganda, and they’ll come out into the world brainwashed.” New Jersey is now the second U.S. state to mandate such garbage.

Ignoring the fact that few things are less healthy than the homosexual lifestyle, in 2015, to further the perverse LGBT agenda, California enacted the deceptively named California Healthy Youth Act. Only recently have some of the more controversial provisions of the law begun to take effect.

Among other things, the law declares it will help students develop “healthy attitudes” on “gender [and] sexual orientation.” As was noted last year, one of the teaching materials approved by the California law is a “sexual health toolkit.” Again, according to Life Site News, this “toolkit”—among many other perverse things—“offers kids tips on using sex toys and anal lubricant. It defines ‘anal intercourse,’ ‘phone sex,’ and more as ‘common sexual behaviors’” and even has a section entitled “Wetter Makes It Better.”

The toolkit—or more aptly, “foolkit”—also tell kids that they may “[Have] Sex on Your Own Terms.” To clarify what this means, youngsters are provided with a “Relationship Bill of Rights.” This tells kids—kids!—that they have the “right” to:
  • Trust my feelings.
  • Be with who I want, when I want, and how I want.
  • Have sex when my partner AND I both want to.
Of course, “Be with who I want, when I want, and how I want” must include “rolling around on floor mats with each other” while wearing dog masks, along with “collars, and tail-shaped butt plugs, barking and sniffing.” If you’re a government school parent, you’d better be wary. Your child’s school may soon be “going to the dogs”—literally.

And if your children remain in government schools, you may not have any say in the matter. Last year Orange County told parents that the California Healthy Youth Act does not allow them to have their children opt out of “instruction, materials, or programming that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and does not discuss human reproductive organs.”

Thanks to New York democrats, father-daughter dances are now being cancelled. The Blaze notes,
Last week, the principal of Staten Island Public School 65 told the PTA to pull the plug on its annual father-daughter dance because of the New York Department of Education’s new Gender Nonconforming Student Guidelines, prohibiting events with “gender based practices.”

Department spokeswoman Toya Holness told the New York Post that schools “must ensure that such events are gender-neutral and open to all students and their person(s) in parental relation.”

The DOE’s LGBT community liaison, Jared Fox, further explained: “Father-daughter dances inherently leave people out. Not just because of transgender status, just life in general. These can be really uncomfortable and triggering events.”
Colorado democrats have recently proposed new legislation (HB19-1032) that, along with banning the teaching of abstinence-only sex education, also requires teachers to include “the relational or sexual experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals” in their lessons. Backed by Planned Parenthood and The American Civil Liberties Union, HB19-1032 “also teaches youth about the different relationship models they and their peers may engage in, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender peers, and how to be a safe and healthy partner in a relationship.”

As Focus on the Family notes,
The bill creates numerous problems as it codifies “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI) into Colorado's public school sex education. SOGI laws have been highly detrimental to religious freedom, free speech and parental rights. The Colorado Catholic Conference opposes the legislation because it encroaches on local and parental control of education and stigmatizes their beliefs.
Fox News reports, according to the Catholic News Agency,

[M]ost Colorado public schools have taught so-called “comprehensive” sex-ed courses since 2013, but some charter and rural schools opted out of doing so. The current bill removes that option, requiring schools to teach either the proposed sex-ed curriculum or nothing at all.

So much for “tolerance.” But this whole sorry sordid crusade has never been about tolerance, discrimination, marriage, and the like. This has always been about the forced moral legitimization of the complete LGBT agenda—dog faces and all—and about revenge upon all of those who’ve stood, or continue to stand, in the way of such “progress.” Thus, it is also about the undoing of the Christian teachings on sexual morality, and, as if it were possible, the undoing of Christianity itself.

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

Thursday, February 7, 2019

Infanticidal Democrats Took Their Cues from Barack Obama

As I’ve pointed out on several other occasions, when it comes to the most significant moral issues of our time, no one should be surprised by immoral actions of modern liberals. You can be saddened, shocked, angry, disgusted, and the like, but you should not be surprised. This is certainly true when it comes to the issue of abortion, and tragically, even when it comes to infanticide.

For decades, democrats have dehumanized the unborn and argued against protecting the most innocent and helpless among us, even when they escaped death in their mother’s womb. In order to further their wicked sexual agenda, democrats at the highest levels have taken some of the most radically gruesome views of life in the womb. No less than Barack Obama, himself, took a position on children who survived abortion that can only be described as infanticide.

Obama, while a member of the Illinois state Senate, opposed multiple versions of an Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). According to National Right to Life, BAIPA was essentially “a simple two-paragraph proposal – [that] established…for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor.”

In 2000, the original BAIPA was passed by the U.S. House by a vote of 380 to 15. This occurred in spite of opposition by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Even staunch pro-abortion leaders, such as Jerrold Nadler, ignored the NARAL position and supported BAIPA. This version of BAIPA was later killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001, the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal BAIPA. Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” Because, of course, we need the “equal protection clause” to tell us that we shouldn’t kill our children.

Obama finally, and “boldly,” voted “present” on the bill, which had the same effect as voting “no.” The bill passed the Illinois senate but died in a house committee. The scene pretty much repeated itself in 2002, this time with Obama voting “no.”

In 2002, a “neutrality clause” was added to the federal BAIPA. This clause basically said that, as far as federal law was concerned, legal protection could not be construed upon a human being prior to being “born alive.” This effectively protected Roe. The bill unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002.

Obama is on the record saying that he would have supported the Illinois bill had it contained the neutrality clause. In October of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act…”

However, in 2003 the exact language of the federal neutrality clause was added to the Illinois bill making it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA. In March of 2003, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

In attempting to blunt the extremism of his abortion record, Obama stated time and again that the lack of a neutrality clause was all that was preventing him from supporting the Illinois bill. When he was called out on the matter, Obama accused individuals and institutions of lying about his record. His campaign later had to admit that his critics were correct about his voting record.

Obama’s radical—evil—position on infants born alive was widely reported on in the pro-life media. There was even audio of him making his case! Obama’s position was described as infanticide prior to his presidential re-election bid in 2012. He not only won two presidential elections with such evil positions on life, but he was so emboldened that once Obamacare became the law of the land, then President Obama instructed his Department of Health and Human Services to issue its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

As David French noted at the time, “This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.” Obama pulled, and along came New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, and Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo. As most now well know, on infanticide, each of these democrat governors has picked up where Obama left off.

It seems clear to me that what immoral democrats in New York passed and what immoral democrats in Virginia and Rhode Island are proposing all violate the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act. However, as Operation Rescue points out,
Some have postulated that with New York’s new abortion law, crimes committed by late-term abortionist and convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell will now be legal in New York. He was convicted of first-degree murder on three counts of snipping the spinal cords of living newborns who survived abortions at his Philadelphia “House of Horrors” clinic.

That may well be the case.

The Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 mandates that babies born alive during abortions must be cared for as patients. Unfortunately, that act has no enforcement clause, meaning there is no criminal or civil penalty for violating it. Even Kermit Gosnell could not be charged with breaking that law.
The proposed Rhode Island bill, co-sponsored by state Sen. Gayle L. Goldin and Rep. Edith H. Ajello, would, as Life News notes, “strip away even minor, common-sense abortion regulations.” Life News continues,
The bill appears to allow restrictions for late-term abortions, but it adds a broad “health” exception for abortions after viability. The exception would allow women to abort unborn babies up to nine months of pregnancy for basically any “health” reason, including “age, economic, social and emotional factors,” a definition given by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Doe v. Bolton.

Ajello described protections for unborn babies as “insidiously restrictive, harmful and patriarchal reproductive laws.” Her bill would even repeal the state partial-birth abortion ban and fetal homicide law, which provides justice to pregnant mothers whose unborn babies are killed by abusive partners, drunken drivers or others whose illegal actions cause the death of the unborn baby.
Do you remember our partial-birth abortion debate? With 281 House votes (65%), including 63 democrats, and 64 Senate votes (that’s 64% for you math-challenged folks), including 17 democrats, and President Bush’s signature, in 2003 the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban became law. Twice Bill Clinton vetoed similar bills, and while a partial-birth abortion ban was finally being passed at the federal level, state senator Barack Obama was opposing the Illinois version of a partial-birth abortion ban.

When he arrived in the U.S. Senate, Obama denounced the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the ban. In the months prior to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama said, “The first thing I’ll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).” FOCA, as co-sponsor Barbara Boxer described, “supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.”

As Rich Lowry described FOCA in Politico,
The act would enshrine in federal law a right to abortion more far-reaching than in Roe v. Wade and eliminate basically all federal and state-level restrictions on abortion. This isn’t a point its supporters contest; it’s one they brag about. The National Organization for Women says it would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies.”
Look for the next democrat nominee for POTUS to make a pledge similar to Obama’s. Whether Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Corey Booker, Andrew Cuomo, and the like, it seems that all of the candidates seeking to replace Barack Obama at the head of the Democrat Party will continue his wicked war on the unborn.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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