A very interesting video on public faith from Living Waters ministry. Living Waters is led by evangelist Ray Comfort.
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
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com
In this clip, Tucker tackles Big Pharma, Democrats, opioids, antidepressants, and the COVID vaccine. There's some eye opening stuff here, including the new and amazing fact that antidepressants don't actually do what they've LONG been advertised to do. Watch:
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
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com
The end of Roe v. Wade—while a tremendous constitutional victory—is far from enough to end abortion in America. Many states in the U.S. will see just as many abortions—if not more—as they would have if Roe had never been overturned. What’s more, the (seemingly always) angry left in America seems ever more determined to bring even more sexual deviancy into our culture.
As the last several decades have taught us, the left doesn’t
need an excuse to push the sexual boundaries in America, but losing Roe
seems to have pushed many into a deeper darkness when it comes to matters in
the sexual realm.
After the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe,
Teen Vogue—a magazine for adolescents—published an article entitled “How
to Get an Abortion if You’re a Teen After Roe v. Wade Was Overturned.” The
article goes to great lengths to undermine parents of pregnant teenagers, declaring,
“Having access to abortion should be your right, regardless of your parents’
beliefs.”
The article goes on to say,
If you aren’t comfortable telling a parent about your decision to have an abortion, you can seek what’s called a “judicial bypass” in one of the many states that has this system. Judicial bypass allows you to go directly before a judge and get approval from that judge to have an abortion, rather than having consent from your parents. Yes, it’s paternalistic and unfair that you literally have to get permission from someone else to choose what to do with your body, but it is an option for legal abortion.
The piece also included a link to an “interactive map” on
abortion access throughout the United States. Of course, we shouldn’t be
surprised. As a Red State writer recently
noted—recalling the infamous “A Guide to Anal Sex”—Teen Vogue has
been “a pioneer” in marketing sex to kids. I suppose if you’re going to sell
immoral sex to kids, you may as well promote the immoral “solution” to immoral
sex as well.
Along with garbage media like Teen Vogue, the left in
America has widely taken to using “Drag Demon Queens”—specifically “Drag
Demon Queen Story Hour” (DQSH)—to sell sex to children. In a recent
piece at the Huffington Post, one of the “organizers” of DQSH—"Lil
Miss Hot Mess”—in an effort to defend DQSH, promoted drag events as a
“decidedly queer practice” that help assert “the right to queer.”
RuPaul—the infamous celebrity promoter of all things drag—describes
drag as a “very, very political” act because it “challenges the status
quo.” He further adds, “Drag says ‘I'm a shapeshifter, I do whatever the hell I
want at any given time.’” It seems doing “whatever the hell I want at any given
time” now includes promoting a perverse sexual culture to children.
With DQSH now having occurred for years in many U.S. cities,
with little real pushback, those devoted to the evil
LGBTMYNAMEISLEGION agenda now feel emboldened to have kids attend actual drag
shows (and even participate
in them!). One promoter of this evil boldly declares, “children
belong at drag shows!” (WARNING: previous link is extremely graphic!) These
are highly
sexual events where partial to near-full nudity is frequent, and the language
and actions during the shows are filled with sexual innuendo. (This type of
garbage is also often
present at most every “Pride” parade.)
And the Democrat Party—at the highest levels—seems all for
this evil. Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel—a democrat—has
called for “A drag queen for every school!” Nessel’s full quote:
A drag queen for every school! That is what would be fun for the kids and lift them up when they are having emotional issues. Drag queens—not only are they not hurting our kids—drag queens make everything better! Drag queens are fun.
Since 2018, New York City has
paid over $200,000 to Drag Story Hour NYC to read books to K-12 students. New
York Mayor, Eric Adams—a democrat—defended the practice, stating, “The goal is
not only for our children to be academically smart, but also emotionally
intelligent. Drag storytellers, and the libraries and schools that support
them, are advancing a love of diversity, personal expression, and literacy that
is core to what our city embraces.”
Last year, Alaska democrats used
their resources to promote a DQSH event. A Facebook post announced, “The
Alaska Democratic Party is proud to host this event virtually so Alaskans
across the state can now enjoy story time together.”
In an appearance on “RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars,” Nancy
Pelosi stated that drag queens are “what America is all about.” According
to The Heritage Foundation, in an effort to force schools throughout
America to promote the transgender agenda, the Biden administration “skipped
over Congress and any rule-making processes and are threatening to withhold
federal school lunches from low-income children in schools where boys are not
allowed to participate in girls sports or access girls bathrooms.”
Scott McKay at The American Spectator is right, “The
evidence of the Left’s designs on America’s children is everywhere.” And the
Democrat Party’s fingerprints are all over these “designs.” I suppose this is
why the left wants to make sure that 10-year-olds can get abortions.
During the past week, in order to push their abortion/sex
agenda, democrats throughout the U.S. widely, and quickly, spread the story of
a 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio, who, due to Ohio’s restrictions, had to flee
to Indiana to obtain an abortion. The story has yet
to be verified and appears to be nothing more than more
vile leftist propaganda.
If the modern left, and today’s Democrat Party, truly cared
about pregnant 10-year-olds, they would stop promoting policies that helped
create them.
Update: There is now some indication that the story of a pregnant 10-year-old in Ohio who went to Indiana to obtain an abortion may be true. From Twitchy:
The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Gershon Fuentes, a 27-year-old Columbus man, has been charged with the rape of a 10-year-old girl who traveled to Indianapolis for an abortion...And the report says Fuentes is “believed to be undocumented.”
In other words, it appears that Fuentes is an illegal immigrant. If this is indeed the case, the premise of this piece is spot on, though in a way not specifically mentioned in my original version of this piece. I failed to note the U.S. southern border disaster, which, along with allowing the entry of child rapists, is also a tremendous gateway for sex trafficking. Of course, it is the policies of the Democrat Party that are specifically and especially responsible for the illegal entry into the U.S. by purported criminals like Fuentes.
(See the original version of this column at American Thinker and The Blue State Conservative.)
Copyright 2022, 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
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com
Tucker Carlson asks some very important questions, and sheds some more light, on what very well may be one of the greatest crimes in human history: the outbreak of the Wuhan Virus (Covid-19) and our--and much of the rest of the world's--response to it. Watch:
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
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com
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 (by a close 187 to 168 vote), Maryland, and South Carolina made it eight states. New Hampshire was the state that put the Constitution into effect.
Christian ministers played no small role in the matter. Samuel Langdon was a
distinguished theologian and scholar. He graduated from Harvard in 1740, went
on to become a prominent Congregational minister, and was president of Harvard
University from 1774 to 1780. He was also a delegate to the New Hampshire
convention that ratified (by the slim margin of 57 to 46) the U.S. Constitution
in 1788. New Hampshire was the last of the necessary nine states needed to
ratify the Constitution. In order to persuade his fellow delegates to vote in
favor of the U.S. Constitution, Langdon 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” (if only the
eighteenth century French had taken notice) 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, by a vote of 34
to 32, 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.
Happy Independence Day!
Copyright 2022, 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
trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com
In overturning the appalling judicial activism of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which, in its infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion at any stage of pregnancy throughout the U.S., the current SCOTUS writes,
For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature…
At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” …
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In other words, whatever one thinks of killing the unborn,
the Roe decision of 1973 invented a Constitutional “right” and robbed
Americans of the freedom to govern themselves. The result of Dobbs was
to reverse this egregious legal error. As soon as it’s given the opportunity,
today’s SCOTUS should do the same with the awful
Obergefell ruling that forcefully legalized same-sex “marriage”
throughout the U.S.
Like Roe, the majority
in Obergefell largely relied on the Fourteenth Amendment to justify
nullifying marriage laws in dozens of U.S. states. The majority in Obergefell
concluded:
Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.
The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way, though they set forth independent principles.
Likewise, as in Roe, the five to four Obergefell
majority discovered a “right” that heretofore had escaped U.S. citizens,
legislatures, and courts for well over two centuries. And again the SCOTUS mistook
itself for a legislative body. As John Roberts noted in his dissent:
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” …
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage… In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage…Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.
Additionally, in his concurring dissent, the late-great
Justice Scalia rightly concluded:
The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
As
I noted at the time, and as did The New York Times,
as recently as 2009, 31 U.S. states had put same-sex marriage before its
electorate, and by an overwhelming majority (an average of 67.5%), U.S. citizens
rejected same-sex “marriage” in every case. This included very liberal states
such as Maine, California, Oregon, and Hawaii. Going even further, 29
states amended their constitutions in order to ban same-sex marriage and also
specifically defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Furthermore, many states also banned any sort of civil
unions and refused to recognize same-sex “marriages” legalized by other states.
All of this was rendered moot by a mere five to four majority in Obergefell.
Again, there’s no other institution in the history of humanity with more “precedent” than marriage as the union of one man and one woman. As they did with abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court should put this grave matter back into the hands of U.S. citizens and their legislators.
(See a version of this column at American Thinker and The Blue State Conservative.)
Copyright 2022, Trevor Grant Thomas
