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.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Why Should Obama Care About the Babies Dying in Aleppo?

Yesterday, the notoriously left-wing rag The New Yorker published a piece entitled "THE BABIES ARE DYING IN ALEPPO". The piece includes the now famous photo of Omran Daqneesh, the five year-old Syrian boy who was videoed bloody, dusty, and apparently shell-shocked in the back of an ambulance after being rescued from a bombed-out building in Aleppo.

The New Yorker piece points out that Omran Daqneesh is far from the only child who's suffered as the result of the complicated civil war waged by various Islamists in Syria. It begins:

Last month, four newborns in incubators fought for their lives in a small hospital in Aleppo, the besieged Syrian city. Then a bomb hit the hospital and cut off power—and oxygen to the incubators. The babies suffocated. In a joint letter to President Obama this month, fifteen doctors described the infants’ deaths: “Gasping for air, their lives ended before they had really begun.” The doctors are among the last few in the eastern part of Aleppo, the historic former commercial center where a hundred thousand children are now trapped. 

“Young children are sometimes brought into our emergency rooms so badly injured that we have to prioritize those with better chances, or simply don’t have the equipment to help them,” the doctors wrote. Only a trickle of food is making it through a land blockade imposed by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. “Whether we live or die seems to be dependent on the ebbs and flows of the battlefield,” the doctors said. “For five years, we have faced death from above”—bombs—“on a daily basis. But we now face death from all around.”

The letter from the Aleppo doctors was an attempt to get the U.S. to intervene on behalf of the Syrians. "We do not need tears or sympathy or even prayers," read the letter. "We need your action. Prove that you are the friend of Syrians." These Syrians don't know our president very well. Using children--even newborn children--who face a serious threat of death does little to move the steel-will of our uber-liberal Commander-in-Chief. As I noted years ago (before he was ever elected U.S. President), Barack Obama is so devoted to modern American liberalism that he refused to stand up for infants born alive after an attempted abortion.

In spite of the clear evidence of life in the womb that videos like this provide, Obama and those who share his worldview continue to ignore sound science and morality when it comes to the most innocent and vulnerable human beings. So, sorry Syria. When we have a U.S. President who cares about babies dying in the womb, maybe then you can appeal to America about babies dying in Aleppo.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Benghazi is What Happens When the Liberal Narrative on Islam Prevails

The final Benghazi Report is out, and it is a revealing and thorough indictment of the actions of President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and many within the Obama administration.

After Benghazi, where four Americans were killed as the result of a coordinated attack by radical Islamists upon an American embassy, the Obama administration--including Hillary Clinton--immediately put forth the narrative that the attack was the result of a YouTube video, Innocence of Muslims, that was critical of Islam. Of course, the liberal mainstream American media--the same media we're suppose to trust to fairly cover the final Benghazi Report--played right along and helped further the lie that the attack was the result of a video.

In her deceit over the video, days after the attack, and after she had already declared that she knew the attack was not the result of any video, Hillary Clinton went so far as to shake the hand of Charles Wood, father of Benghazi hero Ty Woods, and told him, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." The efforts of Clinton, Obama, and others within the Obama administration and the media who aided and abetted the false video narrative, were so effective in their lies that the creator of the video, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, was arrested.

Of course, we now know that the Obama administration repeatedly lied to and misled the American public about the Benghazi attack. Then, four years later, the Orlando massacre happens, and the Islamic apologists within the Obama administration again attempt to cover-up what really happened when a radical Islamist kills 49 inside a nightclub.

As if it needed to be said again, liberals simply cannot be trusted when it comes to Islam, radical Islam, and the safety of Americans. Marco Rubio could not have been more right when he declared,

Hillary Clinton is disqualified from being commander-in-chief of the United States," Rubio said at the Jan. 14 debate. "Someone who cannot handle intelligence information appropriately cannot be commander-in-chief, and someone who lies to the families of those four victims in Benghazi cannot be president of the United States."

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Bathroom Madness a Natural Consequence of Liberalism

No one should be surprised by President Obama's--or any other "principled" liberal's--take on the "transgender" bathroom debate. Before I proceed, pause for just a moment and imagine almost anyone 20, 40, or 50 years ago reading that last sentence. One of two responses would have been nearly universal: the reader would have been either aghast, or in denial. Some probably would have thought it a joke.

I remember when liberals used to make fun of the idea of men dressing as women:

And this is what most all of America--liberal, conservative, educated, ignorant, Christian, irreligious, and so on--once thought of the ridiculous idea that a man could suddenly become a woman simply because he wanted to:

Don't liberals ever get tired of "struggling against reality?" Now we have to take liberals serious when they talk of forcing us into allowing boys into girls restrooms and locker rooms, because, of course, they are serious. After all, they've already won over no less than the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to their perverse notions of what is marriage.

Of course, this is the madness that results from liberalism. This is what happens when the absolute and eternal truths of God are ignored and mocked. As Southern Baptist Convention President Ronnie Floyd recently put it after President Obama's absurd bathroom edict: "It’s an outrageous attack on our Creator Himself, upon human sexuality and morality and a further advancement of the flagrant attack on religious freedom in our culture." And as Barack Obama again proves, this is what happens when liberals have political power.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Woe to You, President Obama

In the spirit of Matthew 23 and Luke 11:

After Islamic terrorists shot up San Bernardino, President Obama stood before the American people to discuss his plans for guns. Knowing the President as we do, few were surprised.

Now then, when it comes to guns and violence, in a supposedly “real and relatable moment,” outwardly Obama weeps in public, but his politics is filled with bloodshed and wickedness. You foolish liberals! Did not the One who made the citizens of San Bernardino, the school children at Newtown, and the soldiers at Fort Hood, also make those in the womb? Are not the most innocent and defenseless among us worthy of protection?

You sit in the highest office in the land, President Obama, and many must do most everything you tell them. But they must not do as you do, for you do not practice what you preach. Whether Obamacare, taxes, your gun-control efforts, and the like, you put heavy burdens on the shoulders of American citizens, and you see a child in the womb as a “punishment.” You do many things merely for men to see. You make long speeches and seek important seats all over the world.

Woe to you, President Obama, because you have been educated at some of the highest institutions of learning in the world, and have taught constitutional law, yet you neglect true justice, and the love and law of God. You love your legacy so much that you will say almost anything to get your legislation passed.

Woe to you President Obama, teacher of constitutional law, you hypocrite! You travel over land and sea seeking solutions to problems that don’t exist. Yet, as the real problems of our culture loom large and clear, you ignore the Truth and go your own way.

Woe to you, blind liberal fools! You say that gender is however one wants to define it, yet you support the right to kill children in the womb based on their gender. You say the science that looks to the past—Darwinian evolution—and the science that looks to the future—man-made global warming—is clear and “settled,” yet, in the present, you ignore what is right before your eyes. You shed tears for dead children, yet support their slaughter in the womb.

Woe to you, liberal law makers, you hypocrites! You love to give away other people’s money, but you are not very generous with your own. In order to win elections, you promise to make things “free” (healthcare, education, child care, and the like), all the while piling up trillions of dollars in debt. You shed tears for dead children, yet you ignore that this is debt that our children, and grand-children, and great grand-children will have to repay.

Woe to You, President Obama, teacher of constitutional law. You claim to know the law, yet you wish to redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity, and you ignore one of the earliest truths revealed by God. You shed tears for dead children, yet you undermine the institution so important to the wellbeing of all children.

Woe to You, President Obama, teacher of constitutional law. You appoint judges who pervert the eternal and unchangeable laws of the One true Law Giver.

Woe to You, President Obama, teacher of constitutional law. You ignore, or attempt to rewrite the law that our forefathers labored so diligently to give us. You work in the shadows of their memorials, yet you trample their legacy of liberty and justice for all.

Woe to You, President Obama, you hypocrite! You shed tears for the victims of gun violence, yet you did not cry for Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya. On the contrary, you and your administration lied about the events surrounding the attack.

Woe to you, President Obama! Did you cry for the hundreds of victims of gun violence this past year from your home state of Illinois? Where are your tears for the tens-of-thousands of Middle Eastern Christians who are victims of violent Islamic extremism? Did you cry for the victims of Islamic extremism in Paris? Do you weep for the young girls kidnapped and made sex-slaves by violent Islamic extremists in Africa?

Woe to you, President Obama! You condemn the Crusades from centuries ago, yet you ignore the violent and oppressive nature of modern Islam. As millions the world over suffer and die under the wicked oppression of Islam, you refuse even to utter the word “Islamic” when describing the most violent and extreme cases.

Oh America, America, how long will we languish under the lies of liberalism? How long has our Creator longed to provide us refuge under his wings? We say, “In God We Trust,” but as we live our lives, far too many of us look to our own knowledge, wisdom, and power. We say we are free, but we have become slaves to sin and unrighteousness. We refuse to repent, and instead attempt to redefine sin. For America to be truly great, Americans must get off of the throne of our lives and give way to Him who reigns forever and ever.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

A Good Election Night for Conservatives

Whether gubernatorial races, or ballot measures on the moral issues, last night was a very good election night for conservatives across America.

In Kentucky, by a margin of 53-44, Republican Matt Bevin easily defeated his Democrat challenger, Attorney General Jack Conway. What makes this result most interesting is that most political experts had given the TEA Party favorite Bevin little chance of winning. Conway's Real Clear Politics ending poll advantage was +3, with no polls in Bevin's favor. As WSB's Jamie Dupree notes, all of the polling trends were in Conway's favor.

Dupree attributes Bevin's win to a recent ad that tied the Democrat Conway to President Obama:

Likewise, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post notes the same video, and says that Bevin, who "wasn't a very good candidate," (Cillizza's a liberal and a regular on MSNBC) has Barack Obama to thank for his win. An interesting side note to Bevin's big win: his running mate, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor, Jenean Hampton (also a TEA Party favorite), is the first black elected to statewide office in Kentucky history.

With little real opposition, Mississippi's Republican Governor Phil Bryant easily won a second term.

In a stiff rebuke to Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe, Virginia Republicans held onto all of their state senate seats, and maintained their senate majority. The GOP dominates the Virginia House, and McAuliffe and the Democrats spent millions attempting to turn the senate.

By a nearly two-to-one margin (65-35), Ohio voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot initiative that would have legalized recreational marijuana. 

Similarly, in liberal Houston (they have a lesbian mayor), the electorate soundly rejected the foolishly misnamed "Equal Rights Ordinance." The ordinance, which was championed by Mayor Annise Parker--did I mention that she's a lesbian?--would have allowed people to use restrooms, showers and other public accommodations based on their "gender identity," and not their biological sex. In other words, people could've simply walked into any restroom or bathhouse they so desired.

The liberals on Houston's council had, by an 11-6 vote, passed the law in May of 2014. Through the efforts of conservatives, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the law repealed or placed on the ballot. If you recall, it was this perverse law which led to Mayor Parker attempting to subpoena sermons and the like by Houston area pastors who spoke out against the law and homosexuality in general. 

As I've said before, whatever the outcome of any election, Christians should never be too elated or too downtrodden. Politics is a realm occupied by men and women, who will almost certainly let us down. This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in, or concerned with, politics. We most certainly should. However, we must live knowing that our hope is not in any individual or institution in this world. As S.M. Lockridge put it when it comes to the One Christians serve, "You can't impeach Him, and He's not going to resign." 

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Guns Don’t Kill People, Liberalism Does

President Obama wants us to politicize gun deaths in America. I decided to take him up on his invitation.

I hope that no one is surprised that Obama took this opportunity again to attack guns, the gun industry, and those of us who are fans of the Second Amendment. This is what a community organizing career politician does. For liberals like Obama, virtually everything is, or must be made, political. Because political problems require political solutions, and thus, when something is politicized, those in favor of empowering and growing government get to do what they do best: give speeches, call for legislation, and attempt to stir up the electorate in their favor.

Prior to the murderous rampage by Chris Harper Mercer at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, liberals across America must’ve decided that after the next mass shooting in the U.S., “time to politicize” was going to be one of the themes of their talking points. Prior to Obama’s speech on the Umpqua massacre, where he declared “this is something we should politicize,” in the largest newspaper in my home state of Georgia, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, liberal columnist Jay Bookman (at about 3:30 in the afternoon on the day of the shooting) posted an online piece entitled, Another mass shooting at college? Hell yes we should ‘politicize it.’

Liberals wouldn’t do this if it hadn’t worked for them in the past. In spite of being on the wrong side of virtually every moral issue of our time, democrats have won many elections with their shrewd political skill. However, it’s not that liberals are that much better at politics than conservatives. It’s that the deck is stacked in their favor. As I’ve pointed out before, because under liberalism the moral demands are few, politics is much easier for liberals.

Again, when you operate in the realm of fantasy, it is much easier not only to ignore the truth, but also to manufacture crises and perpetuate false injustices so as to paint oneself as the savior for what needs (or will need) fixing. Thus, “never let a crisis go to waste” is a frequent means by which political power is obtained and kept. Far too many Americans are all too willing to cast their votes for those who promise to “protect” them—from the climate, from the corporations, from the Christians, from guns, and from the consequences of their own bad decisions.

Speaking of fantasy and guns, (on this, there’s no shortage of material from liberals) in an attempt to defame the NRA and republicans, I recently encountered the following:

“Last Year” in the poster is a reference is to 2013. However, what any good liberal will neglect to point out is that of those 33,636 deaths, nearly two-thirds were suicide, with an additional several hundred the result of legal intervention. (Even Wikipedia has the numbers.) The high ratio of gun deaths by suicide has been the case for years. Nevertheless, liberals regularly report (or even incorrectly report) the 30,000-plus gun deaths in the U.S. without mentioning the number of suicides.

And notice the blood on the hands in the poster above? With nearly 60 million of the most helpless and innocent Americans killed since 1973, when it comes to bloody hands, none are more red-stained than a modern liberal’s. As I noted on the day of the Oregon shootings, given their rabid support for slaughtering the unborn, when it comes to any form of violence—or for that matter, any moral issue whatsoever—no voter should ever trust any “solution” presented by a liberal.

It’s rather telling—but not at all surprising—that so few liberals have demonstrated any shock or remorse at the recent undercover Planned Parenthood videos. Remember how the liberal media had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover the trial of Kermit Gosnell? Whether the Gosnell trial, or the Planned Parenthood videos, the truth about the abortion industry has been known for decades now. What’s more, there’s no real shortage of photographic and video evidence of what really happens during an abortion. Again, much of this has been around for years.

Mother Theresa warned us years ago, “We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other?” As she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, Mother Theresa declared that abortion “is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child—what is left for me to kill you and you kill me—there is nothing between.” In other words, if as a culture we’ve become comfortable killing in the womb, we shouldn’t be surprised at killings in the classroom.

In addition to making what should be one of the safest places for a human being into a killing zone, once outside the womb, the most dangerous places in America are run by liberals (i.e., democrats). According to FBI data, and as Mark Alexander noted a few months ago, “the 10 most dangerous cities in America with populations above 200,000 are all managed, top to bottom, by Democrats. They are: Detroit, Oakland, Memphis, St. Louis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Birmingham, Newark and Kansas City.”

As Alexander also notes, along with being extremely impoverished (the top ten most impoverished American cities are all also run by democrats), these liberal havens have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. And as Umpqua Community College again tragically demonstrated, strict gun laws—such as “gun free zones”—only work when people are willing to obey the laws.

In most cases, these dangerous and impoverished cities have been dominated by liberal politics for decades. Sadly, democrats’ most reliable constituency, black Americans, have suffered most under liberalism. Though only 12.6% of the U.S. population, blacks make up over 35% of abortions in America. Nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

Additionally, blacks (especially young black males) comprise well over half of the 11,000+ annual gun homicides in America. Well over 90% of these murders are the result of black-on-black crime. Multiple times this year, urban America has seen the equivalent of the Umpqua massacre occur over a weekend. In Obama’s home state of Illinois, Chicago alone has had several weekends that were as violent or more violent than what we just witnessed in Oregon. Do you recall any impassioned presidential pressers as a result? Me either.

All of this, and I’ve made no mention of the devastation that liberalism has wrought upon the family, nor the crippling and enslaving economic policies practiced and preached by modern liberals. If Americans want to be safe, the truth is clear: walk with Jesus, buy a gun, and don’t vote for liberals.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Another Mass Shooting, and Obama Wants to "Politicize" It, So...

Shortly after another mass shooting at a school, President Obama took to his bully pulpit and unapologetically declared that it was time to "politicize" such things. I'm happy to oblige.

A little after 10 a.m. this morning, a reportedly 26-year-old male gunman (now revealed to be Chris Harper Mercer) at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, killed 10 9, and injured several others. Later, during the afternoon, a defiant Obama sternly declared, "[T]his is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic."

"Somehow this has become routine," Obama also said, adding, "We've become numb to this." Ha! What a fool! "Numb to this?!" Obama is somewhat correct, but we--and he--should ask: why? Why have we become so "numb?" 

We are certainly not numb because of guns. If any of us are numb to the slaughter of our fellow citizens, it is significantly due to the many lies promoted my modern liberalism and the "values" it promotes. And speaking of "politicizing" things, given their rabid support for killing the most helpless and innocent among us--the unborn--when it comes to any form of violence--or for that matter, any moral issue whatsoever--no voter should ever trust any "solution" presented by a liberal.

In 1994, Mother Theresa wrote to the U.S. Supreme Court, "The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships.

"It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience."

She also wisely concluded, "We must not be surprised when we hear of murders, of killings, of wars, of hatred. If a mother can kill her own child, what is left but for us to kill each other?" As she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, Mother Theresa declared that abortion "is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child--what is left for me to kill you and you kill me--there is nothing between."

For decades now liberals like Obama have sold the lie of abortion. As even more light has been shown on the disgusting practices of the greatest killer of American children who inhabit the womb, Obama--along with his liberal lackeys--praised and promoted them.

For decades now, liberals like Obama have also seen and heard the truth on abortion. Nevertheless, like the blind leading the blind, Obama stands before America today and blames guns, and politicians who reject his liberal ideas on gun-control. Joe Olson, a former president of the college where the shooting today took place, told The Associated Press that "the school only has one security officer on duty at a time, and that officer is not armed (emphasis mine)." Olson also said that last year, "one of the biggest debates on campus was whether or not Umpqua Community College should have armed security officers."

Anyone want to bet that it was liberals like Obama arguing against arming the guards?

Additionally, the New York Post is reporting that Mercer was targeting Christians. A woman who said that her grandmother was in the classroom where some of the murders took place tweeted, 

"The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian,' she wrote. 'If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs. My grandma just got to my house, and she was in the room. She wasn’t shot, but she is very upset.'"

If this is true, the shooter is sounding more and more like another poor fool corrupted by liberalism. (As--whether Dylann Roof, Jared Loughner, et al--we've tragically seen time and again.)

Of course, more gun laws won't fixed this. Unsurprisingly, in his speech today (see the full transcript here), President Obama scoffed at the one thing that could really change lives that are so bent on the kind of death and destruction we saw today: prayer. Yet, Obama says "our thoughts and prayers are not enough. (Well, our 'thoughts' are certainly not enough.) It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel."

No one should be surprised that a Big Government liberal like Obama sees more government as the solution to this wickedness. And unless their eyes are opened to the eternal truths that should govern the lives of men, no one should be surprised that this is about all we will ever get from men like Barack Obama.

Update: No surprise here. As we've seen so often before (see links above), it seems that Mercer was from a broken home. The media is now reporting that Mercer's parents, Ian Mercer and Laurel Margaret Harper, filed for divorce in June of 2006. Mercer was born in England and came to the U.S. with his mother as a young boy. It has also been reported that, up until his death, the 26-year-old Mercer lived with his mother.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Get’cha Honey for Nothin’, Get’cha Chips for Free (I want my, I want my, I want my E-B-T!)

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.

As I noted earlier this year, the largest “charity” in the U.S. is government (which, of course, brags about it!). Americans gave a total of approximately $3.4 billion (about $2.4 billion from individuals) to private charities in 2013. In the same year, Americans received over $600 billion from means-tested (recipients required to be below a certain income level) government programs (housing, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, and the like). When non means-tested programs (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and so on) are included, the total is a shocking and staggering $2 trillion dollars.

In case you missed it, for over four consecutive years now, the number of Americans receiving food stamps (transactions are now down with an EBT card) surpassed 45 million. About 20 percent of U.S. children receive food stamps. Thus nearly one-fifth of our future electorate is being conditioned to the idea that it is government’s responsibility to make sure they are fed.

Of course, with the current size and role the government plays in our everyday lives, people have come to expect much more than food from their Uncle Sam. And liberals are intent on growing these expectations.

Given the life-changing financial decision Michelle and I made 17 years ago, anytime I see a headline containing the phrase “debt free,” my attention is drawn. This is especially the case whenever the headline is a reference to a plan or scheme devised by a liberal. Most liberals’ ideas of “debt free” involves either printing massive amounts of money or heavily taxing those who tend not to vote for democrats (or at least have no lobbyist to create tax loopholes).

As her campaign falters, Hillary Clinton recently announced her plan to do more of what liberals do best: give away other people’s money. In an effort to politically capitalize on the massive $1.2 trillion in student loan debt that is held by tens-of-millions of Americans, Clinton proposed “to make public colleges debt-free for students, to cut interest rates for people struggling with debt from loans taken out to pay for college, and to expand some existing aid programs to cover more people.”

Her campaign says that the new program would cost $350 billion over ten years, which means that it will probably cost at least twice that much. Liberals are almost as bad at predicting the future costs of federal programs as they are at climate change predictions. (The interesting thing to ponder is which bad prediction will end up costing us more.) Of course, as is almost always the case with these things, Clinton’s plan will not make college less expensive, but more so.

Clinton isn’t alone in her plan to further expand the role of the federal government in education. According to Alex Simindinger, writing in Real Clear Politics, “Affordable, debt-free college is now an economic policy plank for all the Democratic presidential candidates, who believe it resonates across political parties, across economic strata, and with young people as well as with their parents and grandparents.”

In other words, liberals have examined the political landscape and found the next new way—much to Benjamin Franklin’s dismay—to give the electorate the opportunity to vote themselves money. And “affordable?!” Social Security, the oldest, and arguably the most popular federal social welfare program, is, according to Andrew Briggs of the American Enterprise Institute, “the Titanic headed for the iceberg.” And there is virtually no political will in Washington, D.C. to do anything about it.

In 2014 Medicare—which is as popular as Social Security—cost the U.S. government $600 billion, which was just short of defense spending. This spending was nearly double Medicare’s receipts ($342 billion) for 2014. Put another way, Medicare brings in about 11% of federal tax revenue, while amounting to nearly 17% of federal spending. As John Graham of the National Center for Policy Analysis implies, “Medicare devours the federal government.”

In other words, with over $18 trillion in total federal debt, and an annual federal budget deficit of nearly $500 billion, virtually no Big Government social program is “affordable.” Of course, this includes Obamacare.

In spite of the oft-parroted notion that Obamacare is “working,” the law is much more expensive than promised ($2 trillion instead of $900 billion—Democrats will just make this up out of petty cash), fewer people are covered than promised, premiums are rising faster than promised (“23 percent in Illinois, 25 percent in North Carolina, 31 percent in Oklahoma, 36 percent in Tennessee and 54 percent in Minnesota), fewer doctors are available than promised (“42 percent fewer oncology and cardiology specialists; 32 percent fewer mental health and primary care providers; and 24 percent fewer hospitals”), and so on.

As is often the case with these programs, Obamacare was sold on a mountain of lies. Because of the desire of many Americans to receive “free” stuff from the government, and because of the refusal of far too many Americans to recognize that such things are never free, we are now saddled with another massive government program that we may never be rid of.

The idea that Americans are getting things “free” from the government may be the lie of the century. A billboard near my home illustrates well this lie:

According to its website, “Peach State provides all of the medical services covered by Medicaid and PeachCare for Kids.” In other words, Peach State is government healthcare in Georgia. PeachCare is Georgia’s version of CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program). As a result of the failed efforts of “Hillarycare,” but in order to get at least some expansion of the role of government in healthcare, SCHIP (as it was formerly known) was created in 1997 as a shared federal-state health insurance program for children and pregnant mothers in families whose incomes were too high for Medicaid.

Take note of the advertisement of “Free Dental & Vision Coverage” on the billboard. Such deception is replete when it comes to these Big Government programs. To quote Mattie Ross from True Grit, “You must pay for everything in this world in one way or another. There is nothing free except the grace of God.” If only more Americans were as eager for God’s grace as they were for Obama’s stash.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Left-Wing Lynch Mob Claim Officers Ramos and Liu

In the wake of the execution of New York City police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu by liberal vigilante Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the president of the city’s largest police union, Patrick Lynch, laid blame for the murders at the feet of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio. The blood of the dead officers “starts on the steps of City Hall,” he said, “in the office of the mayor.”

In a separate statement, Sergeants Benevolent Association Police Union President Edward Mullins, blasted Mayor de Blasio as well and declared that, “the blood of these two officers is clearly on your hands.” While de Blasio is certainly complicit in the tragic deaths of these two officers, he is far from alone.

Coming off a staggering electoral defeat, in order to breathe fresh life into liberalism, when it came his turn, Mayor de Blasio merely followed the lead of his fellow liberal race-hustlers in rushing to paint a militant, racist picture of police across America. Liberals such as de Blasio, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama saw the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner as little more than a political opportunity.

The cries of “racism” in the deaths of both Brown and Garner was little more than a tragic attempt to use a “snarl-word” to perhaps get potential voters to again consider the Democrat Party. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, “the whole Democrat Party now is one big grievance industry.”

As Rush also noted, the left is out there doing their best to rouse-up these rage-filled angry mobs. “[C]ollege professors, these pop-culture false idols, elected Democrats, the media, are literally making their followers, i.e., base voters, insane with rage and anger.” And just as no one should be surprised that a publication devoted to liberalism would flub a story on campus sexual assault, no one should be surprised that a member of the liberal base would take the chant of “What do we want? Dead Cops!” to its literal fruition.

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

When Voting, Remember the Federal Judiciary (updated)

Near the top of the page on Drudge this evening is a link to the New York Times lead tomorrow (Sunday). The title of the piece is Building Legacy, Obama Reshapes Appellate Bench. The article notes the recent changes that have occurred within the federal judiciary. It begins:

"Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

"For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees."

The piece notes that, of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals, Democratic appointees to these powerful federal benches now hold majorities in nine of them. The article further declares that, 

"The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts."

Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer is quoted noting that "This will affect America for a generation, long after the internecine battles on legislative issues are forgotten." Schumer is exactly, and tragically, correct. This was one of my biggest fears of an Obama presidency--especially a presidency that was accompanied by a Democratic majority in the Senate. 

As I noted in early 2008 when making my Case for McCain, "Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt." 

Additionally, as I added a few months later (June) of 2008, "On judicial nominees the choice for conservatives in November is clear." If only more Americans had listened! Packing the federal judiciary with liberals is a disastrous consequence of electing liberals such as Obama and Schumer.

Of course such disastrous consequences are easily seen with the many federal rulings that seek to redefine marriage and legally force the legitimization of homosexual behavior upon the American people. Along with their homosexual agenda, liberals are using the courts to push their calamitous climate agenda along with their hideous healthcare agenda. Unlike legislation, as Roe v. Wade teaches us, such efforts by the courts are not so easily undone, Again, as Schumer points out, it could take generations before we see a reversal of these efforts by liberals, as one of the most enduring accomplishments of any presidency is his impact on the judiciary. 

Conservatives need to do more to educate our fellow Americans on this matter. This needs to be happening now as one-third of the U.S. Senate, which must confirm the president's judicial nominees, is up for reelection this November--less than two months from today.  

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Clear Moral Choice

After his drubbing in the first debate, Barack Obama finds himself on the receiving end of plenty of advice when it comes to the next one. Jennifer Granholm (remember her?), the former governor of Michigan turned political commentator (though few know it, as she resides on Al Gore’s Current TV), recently chimed in. “This election involves a moral choice,” she recently declared, adding that, “This is a choice about our national character.”

I have to chuckle whenever liberals want to talk in terms of morality. I mean, after all, it was their party that lustily booed God on their convention floor. Of course, this is in addition to their devotion to killing children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, and their support of sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage.

Ironically, with the devotion they show, for many, liberalism has become a religion. “Observing the basic divide in the American culture,” Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, looks to Howard P. Kainz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Marquette University. Kainz notes: “Most of the heat of [culture] battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism.”

Mohler adds, “Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems for millions of individuals. Looking specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas, canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology…

“Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own dogmas. Among these are the beliefs ‘that mankind must overcome religious superstition by means of reason; that empirical science can and will eventually answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will achieve perfectibility.’”

Of course, this directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian worldview held by most conservatives. Thus, Kainz boldly warns that modern secular liberalism is the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity. This is no new assertion, as Mohler also points out.

In the early 1920s, J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, argued that “evangelical Christianity and its liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions.” In his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen goes so far as to propose that Christian liberalism is not Christianity at all, declaring that “Liberalism has abandoned Christianity.”

Bishop E.W. Jackson certainly thinks so. The fiery black pastor recently implored black Christians to “end [their] slavish devotion to the Democrat Party.” Jackson accuses Democrats of violating “everything we believe as Christians,” and of creating an “unholy alliance” with Planned Parenthood which, he declares, “has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.” He goes on: “Planned Parenthood…has killed unborn black babies by the tens-of-millions…and the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

Many Pastors, of every skin color, are becoming bolder when it comes to political activity. Sunday October 8 was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The movement, led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), challenges the IRS over the 1954 Johnson Amendment which forbids churches from specifically endorsing candidates. Over 1,500 American pastors participated and voluntarily informed the IRS of their “transgression.” (In 2008, the number was only 33.)

As more and more people of faith see our government (especially the federal government) endorsing or specifically engaging in activity that many deem immoral, taking a political stand on the social issues is seen as vital. Pastor Mark Cowart in Colorado Springs told his congregation that, “When a Christian goes in and votes for someone who promotes things that God abhors, I can’t imagine how God sees that. I encourage you to look at your faith and your politics and your vote and see if they correlate.”

Granholm’s recent Huffington Post piece was entitled, “Mr. President: Next Debate, Make Moral Choice Clear.” Of course, what she really means is that she wants Barack Obama to make the case for bigger government. She wants Mr. Obama to make the case for having more of our money. Liberals love to be generous—with other people’s money.

So yes, PLEASE Mrs. Granholm, let’s debate the moral issues. Let’s have Mr. Obama defend his “evolution” on gay marriage and his defense of what could only be described as infanticide. Let him justify to the American people why he prefers to be more generous with our income than he is with his own. Conservatives welcome this debate.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Barack's Candy Mountains

Much to my wife’s dismay, I very much enjoy the 2000 comedy/adventure O Brother, Where Art Thou? Directed by the Coen brothers, the film chronicles the adventures and misadventures of three escaped convicts masterfully played by George Clooney, John Turturro, and Tim Blake Nelson.

One of the most endearing characteristics of the film is that it is filled with wonderful old-timey American folk music. The opening scene is set to the 1928 song, Big Rock Candy Mountain, sung by Harry McClintock. With lyrics like: “In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright; Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night… I'm a goin to stay where you sleep all day; Where they hung the jerk that invented work in the Big Rock Candy Mountains,” the song is described as a hobo’s idea of paradise.

Of course, the modern interpretation would be that the song is a liberal’s idea of paradise. Never has the U.S. been so close to realizing this “paradise.” Americans’ level of dependency on the federal government is at the highest point in our nation’s history.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, “Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions.”

In 1962, the level of dependence was 19; in 1980 (the base year) it was 100; in 2000 it was 179; in 2010 it was 294. John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily reports that the Index surged 23% under just two years of Obama’s Presidency. This was the largest two-year increase since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

Also, as I noted in April, the CBO estimates that 1 in 7 Americans received food stamps last year, while also estimating this rate will rise until 2014. In case you weren’t aware, they are no longer called food stamps. In 2008, the Food Stamp Program became the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As of the late 1990s, the paper stamps were replaced with an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card that works like a debit card.

You also may not be aware that, along with the food benefits, EBT cards are also used to provide cash benefits. Cash benefits can be used to pay for almost any item, and can be used to make cash withdrawals from participating ATMs, which, of course can be used to pay for anything.

As anyone with an IQ above that of Homer Simpson knows, this leads to RAMPANT abuse. The Boston Herald has reported on several cases of EBT abuse in Massachusetts. Early this year a Massachusetts commission revealed that 85% of EBT cash benefit transactions during the month of January were ATM cash withdrawals. The Herald reporting revealed that, “Unscrupulous merchants and welfare abusers have pilfered millions in tax dollars.” The Bay State abuse involves not only cash transactions, but also fraudulent SNAP sales.

This is happening across the country. A recent Minnesota investigation discovered widespread welfare abuse. According to 5 Eyewitness News, “cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets - even tattoos - can be bought with your money. We found welfare cash can be used for all sorts of things never intended, from the Twin Cities to the U.S. Virgin Islands. And it's all legal.”

Eyewitness News also revealed how welfare cash was withdrawn at ATMs inside casinos and bingo halls and then gambled away, and how millions of dollars are being spent on childcare that doesn't exist. As I noted earlier this year, Michigan has million dollar lottery winners so addicted to their welfare, that even after coming into fortunes, they still refuse to wean themselves from the government’s teats.

Then there’s the nation’s “Welfare Queen,” California. National Review reports that, “The main reason that California is so dependent on welfare is its uniquely lax enforcement of the provisions of the 1996 welfare reforms.” California is one of only three states that, after adults have exhausted their welfare benefits, allow the minors in the family to continue to receive them. Thus, 75% of California’s welfare recipients are 18 years-old and younger.

Instead of wanting to curb such dependence, the Obama administration gave us a wonderful visual demonstration of how they plan to create even more welfare queens in the U.S. when they unveiled the poster child of our entitlement society, Julia.

And then there is Obamacare. With the Supreme Court’s ruling—declaring the individual mandate a tax—Americans are now staring at massive tax increase and well over a trillion dollars in spending over the next decade on yet another entitlement program.

Given all of this, in the spirit of Big Rock Candy Mountain, I’ve come up with the theme song for the Obama administration’s reelection campaign: Barack’s Candy Mountains. With lyrics such as,

“In Barack’s Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright; Where the food stamps grow on bushes and you step out every night; Where the TEA Parties are all empty and the sun shines every day; On the birds and the bees and the marijuana trees; Where the lemonade springs where Common sings; In Barack’s Candy Mountains…”

I think I’ve nailed it. Perhaps I could get Julia to sing it.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Barack’s Candy Mountain (sung to Big Rock Candy Mountain)

One evening as the sun went down and the American Dream was burning,

Down the track came a hobo hiking and he said boys I'm not turning.
I'm headin for a land not so far away beside the Scandal Fountains.
So come with me, we'll go and see Barack’s Candy Mountains

In Barack’s Candy Mountains there's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you step out every night,
Where the TEA Parties are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the marijuana trees,
Where the lemonade springs where Common sings
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

In Barack’s Candy Mountains the people have no guns,

But the Mexican bandits do ‘cause Holder sold them some.

The ambassador in Libya was killed because of a video.
Oh, I'm bound to go where there ain't no snow,
’Cause Al Gore says that Global Warming is so
In Barack’s Candy Mountains

In Barack’s Candy Mountains all support the liberal press,
otherwise our phones are tapped and we’re audited by the IRS.
The conservatives have to tip their hats and the talk show hosts are mute.
Where illegal immigrants play and the abortionists slay,
You can find them all at the gay wedding ball
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

In Barack’s Candy Mountains the doctors all are free,

And you may keep your health plan—any one you please.
There ain't no nuclear power plants, no oil, gas, or coal.
I'm a goin’ to stay where you sleep all day,
Where they hung the jerk that invented work
In Barack’s Candy Mountains.

I'll see you all next election fall to bring down Barack’s Candy Mountains.

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

"Demonizing" Democrats

The following shocking statements were directed at the President of the United States:

 

“It is a disgrace. This administration is a disgrace.”

 

“(He) is responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people.”

 

“He's embarrassing... He's not my president. He will never be my president.”

 

“You (and your administration) are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings.”

 

“I hate (him). I despise him and his entire administration — not only because of its international policy, but also the national.”

 

“I don't want add fuel to the fire, but I don't know what it's going to take for people to really wake up and understand that they are liars and they are murderers.”

 

Boy, did the liberals hate George W. Bush. That’s right—every one of the above statements was directed at President Bush. The rage on display here was not conjured up by everyday Americans, such as those attending the TEA parties, but by celebrities such as Julia Roberts, Sean Penn, Joy Behar, and Jessica Lange.

 

In other words, these comments were made by those who have a much larger microphone than the Americans participating in the TEA parties that many liberals now seemed so concerned about. Liberals then were not so concerned with “demonizing the government,” as Bill Clinton recently put. (I suppose it matters who you imagine as a “demon” for there to be concern.)

 

What’s more, YouTube is replete with videos of protests during the Bush administration that show protestors brandishing signs that say things like: “George W. Bush is a terrorist!”; “Team Bush: The True Axis of Evil”; “F-ck Bush”; “Dead or Alive” sign with the name “George W. Bush”; and so on. Then there was the Bush Assassination film.

 

This slander and violence was at least ignored, and at worst parroted, by a media that showed no concern about “inflammatory” or “inciting” statements directed at the President of the United States.

 

But it wasn’t just the kooky celebrities and deranged protestors on the left who were unhinged in their anger. Take note of some of the comments made during Bush’s eight years by leaders of the Democratic Party:

 

“He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure pre-ordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!”—Al Gore

 

“The man's father is a wonderful human being, I think this guy is a loser.”—Harry Reid

 

“Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“We will take to the streets right now. We will delegitimize (him), discredit him, do whatever it takes, but never accept him.”—Jesse Jackson

 

“Regime change! (Do you think this bothered Chris Matthews?) Bush has to go and we have the power to do it. The officials of the government shall be removed from office for crimes and misdemeanor…”—Ramsey Clark

 

“American treatment of terror detainees at the Guantanamo Naval Base is comparable to torture at the hands of Nazis, Soviet gulags and even Cambodian mass murderer Pol Pot.”—Dick Durbin

 

“In the last six and a half years we have seen a dangerous experiment in extremism in the White House.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind.”—John Edwards

 

“There has never been an administration, I don't believe, in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda.”—Hillary Clinton

 

“President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country.”—Harry Reid

 

“The situation in Iraq and the reckless economic policies in the United States speak to one issue for me, and that is the competence of our leader.”—Nancy Pelosi

 

“This country was the moral leader of the world until George Bush became president.”—Howard Dean

 

“No president in America's history has done more damage to our country and our security…”—Ted Kennedy

 

Barely two years from the 9/11 attacks, in September of 2003, writing for Time magazine, Charles Krauthammer notes that, “Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around.” As a result of this behavior, Krauthammer discovered what he considered to be a psychiatric syndrome: Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

 

The TEA Party protests have miles to go before they approach the vitriol that was directed at Bush over a period of several years. And once again the mainstream media finds itself shamefully guilty of the hypocrisy and bias that it is so frequently accused of.

 

Copyright 2010, Trevor Grant Thomas