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):
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood. Show all posts

Friday, April 26, 2024

Taking the "Alphabet Mafia" Seriously

This post is from a piece by David Strom at Hot Air. It was published this past Sunday (4/21/24) in their weekly "Sunday Smiles" section. Everything below is from Mr. Strom's piece:

Karen wrote about the Bill Maher speech that declared, among other things, that Ron DeSantis was right about kicking alphabet ideology out of schools.

It was a great rant, and I agreed with almost every word. Yet it left me angry as well as satisfied, and I will tell you why in a bit. (Language Warning!)


Maher hit all the right notes: the entertainment industry IS filled with pedophiles, adults are sexualizing kids, kids ARE being groomed to become Queer, and Drag Queen Story Hour is perverted.

And Ron Desantis was right, and the only reason why the liberals denied it is that he is a Republican. Yep. Spot on.

So why am I still angry?

That last point gives it away: it takes Bill Maher permitting liberals to admit the obvious to get anybody to take these issues seriously, and that just isn't good enough.

Countless children have been and will be sacrificed to the alphabet gods for no other reason than liberals don't want to admit conservatives are right about anything. ...

It is a FACT that liberals will approve of pedophiles being given access to children because to do otherwise would confirm what conservatives say.

Think about how f'**ked up that is. They will let children be fondled by kiddie diddlers because admitting a Republican is right about an issue is a bridge too far.

We saw EXACTLY this when Sound of Freedom came out. There was a massive campaign to discredit the film and the idea of child sex trafficking for no other reason than Christians liked the film. It was as simple as that. We got the "Q-Anon" accusations. Suddenly, anybody worried about child sex trafficking was called a kook, despite several child sex trafficking rings being broken up WHILE THE CONTROVERSY was ongoing. 


The movie WAS BASED ON A TRUE STORY! But since conservatives liked the movie and that kids were being saved from sexual exploitation, it had to be discredited. There was a massive campaign to destroy the movie that thankfully failed.

We are a long way from alphabet ideology being driven out of society--in Blue states the momentum for it has GROWN as the rest of the world recoils in horror. ...

I have been told I am too angry, to which I say: YOU ARE NOT ANGRY ENOUGH. Horrible evils have been done. Millions stood by and enabled it, even justified it. You listened to all the "right" people, and they lied to you. Don't be angry at me; be angry at them. They did this. I tried to stop it. Get on board or get out of the way. ...

The whole piece is a worthy read. See it here

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



Monday, June 17, 2019

Who Will Hollywood Heed: Alyssa Milano or Chief Executives?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bottom ten states for doing business in 2019 are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Friday, April 5, 2019

Hollywood: Do You Know Why You’re in Georgia?

After Georgia lost out to Louisiana on the production of Ray (the film about Georgia native Ray Charles) in 2008, then Georgia governor—now U.S. Secretary of Agriculture—Sonny Perdue, a Republican, signed tax-incentive legislation that was intended to lure the film industry to Georgia. It worked, and in a big way. Georgia is now often referred to as “the Hollywood of the South.” However, the way things are trending in film production, California may soon seek to become “the Georgia of the West.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, a report by Atlanta’s NBC News affiliate “11-Alive” described Georgia as “the top filming location in the world.” In 2016 and 2017, Georgia led the U.S. in the number of top-grossing feature films produced. In that two-year period, Georgia produced 32 such films, while California was second with 22 top-grossing films. In 2016, Georgia led the world in the production of top-grossing films.

Additionally, in the last decade Georgia has seen a massive investment in film and television infrastructure. U.S. News reports that, “According to Adweek, 16 film and TV studios announced plans to locate or expand facilities in Georgia since 2010.” In 2014, Pinewood Studios Group built its massive Georgia campus. According to U.S. News,
After two expansions, the 700-acre site now houses 18 sound stages with nearly 1 million square feet of covered space. Outside of California, Pinewood Atlanta is the largest purpose-built studio complex in the country, meaning it was built specifically to fit the needs of the film industry.
A Time magazine piece last year reports on “How Georgia Became the Hollywood of the South.” The piece contains several photos of the booming film infrastructure present in Georgia. The piece also notes,
In 2007, the film industry spent $93 million on productions in Georgia. In 2016, it spent over $2 billion. In the past decade, the tax perk has attracted the Hunger Games franchise, the Fast and Furious movies and superproducer Tyler Perry, who has made the state his base. Television hits like Stranger Things, critical darlings like Atlanta and reality series like The Real Housewives of Atlanta have all set up shop in the capital, often for years at a time. Georgia’s government estimates that in 2016 alone, the film industry gave the state a $7 billion economic boost through job creation and tourism.
In other words, the film industry and the state of Georgia have a nice little thing going that seems to be extremely financially beneficial to both sides. However, it doesn’t seem widely understood among those in Hollywood why things in Georgia are so favorable for their industry. This especially seems to be the case with those who make their living in front of the cameras. For those of you who need reminding or are confused or ignorant about why the film industry likes Georgia, allow me to shed a bit of light on the matter.

For over a decade, the Republican Party has dominated Georgia’s politics. The GOP in Georgia has had a “political trifecta”—control of the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate—since 2005. Republicans have won every state-wide race since 2010. Notice how GOP control of Georgia politics coincides with the meteoric rise of the film industry in Georgia. It was a GOP Governor, House, and Senate in Georgia that gave Hollywood the favorable financial conditions it now enjoys, and it is Georgia republicans who keep such conditions in place.

The Georgia GOP has won elections, not just by promising to govern as economic conservatives, but because of their conservative positions on the moral issues as well—especially the issues of life in the womb and marriage. Recall that like dozens of other U.S. states, the Georgia electorate—the voters, not the politicians or courts, mind you—overwhelmingly chose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Unsurprisingly, for well over a decade now, these same voters have decided that they want politicians who share their worldview on the moral issues.

In other words, if you want the benefits of financial conservatism, then you’re going to have to be at least content with conservative legislation on abortion and the like. The same political worldview that has created an economic climate that allows for the creation of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue in the film industry is the same political worldview that protects life in the womb, believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, believes that boys don’t belong in girls’ locker rooms, and so on. These positions have proved quite politically popular in Georgia, and that is why the GOP is in power here.

Ignorant of such facts, for weeks now dozens of Hollywood actors and actresses have threatened the state of Georgia over a recently passed—but yet to be signed into law—pro-life “fetal heartbeat” law. A few days after the Georgia Senate passed the LIFE Act, Alyssa Milano—who thinks MAGA hats are “the new white hood”—penned a brief and angry op-ed for Deadline. A day after Milano’s op-ed, the Writers Guild of America also took their “brave” stand against defending the most helpless and innocent among us. As if we all didn’t already know, Hollywood again made it clear that their “right” to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm trumps almost everything else.

Filmmakers may well decide that instead of making movies and TV shows in Georgia, they would rather take a “principled” stand in favor of killing the unborn and take their business elsewhere. If they hope to find another state that will give them a similar sweet deal on taxes as has Georgia, almost certainly such a state will also be filled with conservatives and conservative politicians who share Georgia’s views on the unborn.

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

Thankfully—unlike Georgia’s last republican governor—in Brian Kemp it seems we now have a governor who’s actually willing to govern according to conservative principles. Though, signing into law a bill that almost certainly will—at least temporarily—be blocked by the courts is not the bravest political act Governor Kemp could—or should—perform. There are other grave moral matters that deserve his, and the Georgia legislature’s, attention.

A strong religious liberty bill (succeeding where former Governor Deal failed), protecting female athletes and students from the transgender madness that is sweeping the nation—these also need sound conservative action in Georgia. Such legislation will be much more likely to withstand legal challenges. And make no mistake about it, as is the case with abortion, Hollywood perverts will howl about any legislation that doesn’t conform to their immoral worldview.

On abortion, Governor Kemp—along with all Georgia republicans—should call the bluff of the Hollywood elite. Let’s see if they really are willing to abandon the tens-of-millions in profits that Georgia’s conservative tax laws allow them, along with the multi-million dollar infrastructure investments already in place in Georgia. In other words, if Hollywood wants to continue to do business in Georgia, they can surrender to the will of Georgians when it comes to our laws. If not, then good riddance, and good luck finding a political climate that will give you what you want on the economic and the moral issues. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Saturday, September 1, 2018

♪If You Believe We Put a Man on the Moon♪…Don’t Go See First Man

When it comes to the American flag on the moon, Hollywood takes a knee. With its soon-to-be released film, First Man, it seems Universal Pictures doesn’t want the world to remember that it was Americans who first landed on the moon. On the contrary, Hollywood again reminds us why Trump was elected and why liberals should never be in any position of power. Remember such come this November.

The absurdity of a film about the first manned mission to the moon—an exclusively American accomplishment—that doesn’t show the moment when Neil Armstrong planted the U.S. flag on the moon makes me wonder: would such a move by Universal and the producers and directors of First Man have taken place had Donald Trump not been elected President of the United States? If this is the case, President Trump is not only living inside the heads of the Hollywood elite, he’s built a HUUUGE skyscraper there and has taken up permanent residence in the top floor penthouse.

Or perhaps Hollywood—like Google—wants to appease the Chinese. As Chinese money pours into Hollywood, its influence over what is produced in the American entertainment industry is growing. Canadian actor Ryan Gosling—who plays Armstrong in First Man—describes the first moon landing as a “human achievement” that “transcended countries and borders.” Almost certainly the Chinese agree.

Communists have a long history of attempting to rewrite history in order to further their agenda. The U.S. entertainment industry is a powerful tool in such propaganda efforts. As John Hinderaker of Powerline put it,
Hollywood’s lies are forever. As time goes by, and fewer people remember the truthful version of events, their capacity to deceive probably grows rather than diminishing. “First Man” represents a more subtle deceit than “JFK” or “Truth,” but it is deceit nonetheless.
Regardless of whether this was Hollywood again displaying its ugly Trump Derangement Syndrome, or Chinese appeasement, or whether it was just the latest lame attempt by the left to rewrite history and put America and Americans “in our place,” this was a truly stupid act. Take note, kids, these hate-filled political syndromes can make you do dumb things.

Did the left really think that such an omission would go unnoticed or be ignored? Whether by commission (kneeling during the National Anthem), or omission (editing out the American flag), the left continues to dishonor and disrespect this nation. Do they really think such deceit—both the anthem protests in the NFL and the flag omission by Universal are rooted in lies—is going to win over the American electorate?

I know well the truth of the moon missions, what went into placing American men on the moon, and the importance of such achievements in the telling of America’s history. One of the chapters in The Miracle and Magnificence of America details how scientific, political, and flight pioneers in the United States turned science fiction into science fact. Prior to the amazing Apollo missions, Americans spent decades pioneering the science, technology, and grit necessary to placing men in space and on the moon.

Called “The father of the Space Age,” Robert Goddard was the first scientist to give serious scientific treatment to the idea that space travel was possible. U.S. newspapers widely reported on Goddard’s work, and for the first time, Americans began to believe that men really could travel to the moon.

Goddard—an American physicist, engineer, and inventor—was already famous worldwide for his contributions to rocketry. In 1920, less than two decades after the Wright brothers astounded the world by flying for 12 seconds at an altitude of 10 feet, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard’s groundbreaking paper, “A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes.”

Prior to 1920, Goddard was successfully building rockets, rocket engines, and making rocket fuel. A staunch patriot, and with the goal of producing rockets that would assist in the war effort, in 1917 Goddard went to work for the U.S. Army. He was able to develop rockets with launchers that could be fired from trenches. He also developed hand-held launchers similar to what would later be known as the bazooka.

Goddard was the first to build a rocket engine that used liquid fuel. Fifteen years later the Nazis would use the same type of engine in their V-2 rocket weapons. In 1935 Goddard became the first to launch a liquid-fueled rocket faster than the speed of sound. In addition to fuels and engines, in his pursuit of getting rockets into space, Goddard also invented many of the components necessary for space travel. Thus, again, America was leading the world into new frontiers. Prior to Goddard, the rocket was simply a toy, as historian Frank H. Winter put it, a small “pasteboard amusement device. Now, astonishingly and suddenly, it was transformed into a revolutionary way to penetrate space.”

In the spring of 1945, after his inspection of a German V-2 rocket, Goddard was convinced that the Nazis had stolen his work. In 1963, Wernher von Braun admitted that Goddard’s rockets “... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles.” He also concluded that “Goddard's experiments in liquid fuel saved us years of work, and enabled us to perfect the V-2 years before it would have been possible.”

By 1946, V-2s were being launched from American soil. As a result of these efforts, the United States achieved many of the world’s firsts in space travel. On October 24, 1946, a 35-mm motion picture camera placed aboard a V-2 took the first ever photo from space. It was a simple and quite grainy black-and-white image of a small portion of the earth.

View of Earth from a camera on V-2 #13, launched October 24, 1946. (White Sands Missile Range/Applied Physics Laboratory
The U.S. was the first to put animals into space. On February 20, 1947, in order to study radiation exposure at high altitudes, fruit flies were launched aboard a V-2 and reached an altitude of 68 miles, just over the “Karman line,” the imaginary line where the earth’s atmosphere meets outer space. On June 14, 1949, the U.S. put the first mammal in space. Also, multiple V-2 rockets flew “experiment packages” in the nose cones. Such packages performed various measurements in the upper regions of the earth’s atmosphere as well as in the lower regions of space.

Given the limited supply and the expense of the relatively large V-2, U.S. rocket scientists developed the sleeker and much less expensive Aerobee rocket. The Aerobee was a two-stage rocket. It greatly reduced the cost of rocket research missions.

As the U.S. was sending more and more rockets and live animals into space, the idea of manned space flight drew closer and closer to a reality. In addition to the effects of high altitudes and low gravity on the human body, the impact of extremely high speed was another necessary and significant area of research by rocket scientists.

The earliest significant speed challenge for man and machine was the sound barrier. On October 14, 1947, in the rocket-powered Bell Aircraft X-1, at an altitude of about 45,000 feet, traveling at Mach 1.07, Air Force test pilot Chuck Yeager became the first human to travel faster than the speed of sound. Supersonic flight soon became a regular occurrence. By the 1950s, Edwards Air Force Base was the destination for pilots thought to have “the right stuff.”

Edwards Air Force Base, along with the United States Naval Test Pilot School in Patuxent River, Maryland, soon became the home of legendary American pilots. “On their way to the stars, the first generation of Americans who would fly into space passed first through Edwards or Pax River.”

Nevertheless, with the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik (Russian for “satellite”) 1, on October 4, 1957, the Russians, not the Americans, ushered in the space age. When Sputnik 2, with the dog Laika aboard, was launched on November 3, 1957, Americans were demanding answers. A media riot ensued. Legendary science editor John Campbell declared, “There is nothing like a good, hard kick in the pants to wake up somebody who’s going to sleep on the job.”

In order to assure Americans that there had been a significant American effort to get into space, four days after the launch of Sputnik 2, President Eisenhower began a series of televised speeches from the Oval Office on the subject of “Science and National Security.”

On July 29, 1955, White House press secretary, James C. Hagerty, announced official U.S. plans for launching satellites into space. By September of that year, the U.S. Navy’s Vanguard satellite program became the official satellite program of the United States. Feeling pressure as the result of the successful launch of Sputnik, on December 6, 1957, Vanguard TV3 was the first attempt by the U.S. to put a satellite into space. The picture below reveals the sad result of the launch:


With millions of Americans anxiously watching on TV, two seconds after launch, and a mere four feet in the air, Vanguard TV3 lost thrust, fell back to the earth, and exploded. It was a sweeping humiliation for the U.S. Newspapers ran headlines using words like “Flopnik,” “Kaputnik,” “Stayputnik,” and “Dudnik” to describe the launch failure. Vanguard soon became a byword for failure.

However, only a few weeks later, on January 31, 1958, America joined the Soviets in space. Launched aboard the Juno I rocket, the Explorer 1 was the first satellite of the United States. 1958 saw multiple efforts by both the Soviets and the Americans to put additional satellites into orbit. There were successes and failures on both sides.

With the Soviets having exploded their first thermonuclear bomb in 1953, when Sputnik 1 was launched into space, military leaders in America rightly feared the idea that the Russians now had a significant first-strike nuclear advantage. Thus, the space race was also quite literally a “rocket race.” Though the U.S. had been working on an intercontinental ballistic missile since just after the end of WWII, the first successful launch of an American ICBM, the Atlas, did not occur until November 28, 1958, more than a year after the first successful launch of the Russian R-7.

However, the Soviets failed to build on their lead in ICBM technology, and by the early 1960s the United States took and maintained an advantage in strategic missile technology. The U.S. missile advantage was due in part to the creation of NASA. On July 29, 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act. It would be NASA that would take America to the moon.

In addition to improving American rocket technology, by 1961 NASA planners had firmly set their resolve on the goal of placing a man on the moon. On May 5, 1961, aboard the space capsule Freedom 7, Alan Shepard became the first American to travel into space. About three weeks later on May 25, President Kennedy announced the goal of a lunar landing by the end of the decade. Toward the end of 1961, the Soviets announced the moon as a target as well.

The failing health of the leader of the Soviet space program, the brilliant Sergei Korolev, and his eventual untimely death in 1966, kept the Russians behind the Americans in the race to the moon. On July 20, 1969, American Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the Moon. About 19 minutes after Armstrong first set foot on the Moon, fellow Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin joined him.

Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17 all sent American men to the surface of the Moon. Twelve men, all Americans, have walked on the surface of the moon. Chronologically, they are Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt.

I thought the moon missions so unique and important in American history that I included a photo of an Apollo astronaut on the surface of the moon on the cover of The Miracle and Magnificence of America. And not just any photo, but the photo of Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott saluting the American flag at the Hadley-Apennine landing site on July 30, 1971. The story of men walking on the moon is a uniquely American achievement. History plainly reveals this, and no amount of Hollywood editing is going to change that.

Copyright 2018, 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

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Barr and Bee: What Do They Really Represent?

So we’re supposed to believe that a Chick-fil-A hating, socialist loving, foul-mouthed former Hillary and Bill Clinton supporter, and 9/11 Truther who once sang the worst rendition of our National Anthem in the history of our nation—afterwards grabbing her crotch and spitting (even Keith Olbermann was critical)—is someone who accurately represents Trump voters. Of course The New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC would have us believe that this is the case.

If only the real Roseanne were more like the TV version. But alas, we are left with the real thing. (I wonder: Who do liberals hate more right now?) As even the most elementary efforts to examine her personal and political past reveal, Roseanne Barr is certainly no conservative. Neither is she widely representative of a typical Trump voter.

She does, however, represent a great problem—for democrats. If someone with the liberal leanings of Roseanne Barr can be persuaded to vote for Trump—and if this can be replicated and repeated—democrats will remain the minority party for the foreseeable future. Just after Trump’s victory over Hillary, it was revealed—by a variety of sources—that Trump was able to peel off more than three times the percentage of Obama voters (13% to 4%) as Hillary was able to lure Romney voters.

If Roseanne embodies anything, she stands for those whose worldview is decidedly liberal, but nevertheless, voted for Trump. If similar numbers of today’s left are able to set aside their (literal) lust for sexual perversion and longing for a government sugar daddy, the democrats are in real electoral trouble. I suspect that more than anything else, this is why liberals were so quick to attack Barr and her show.

Samantha Bee, on the other hand, is anything but a contradiction. Like so many liberal “entertainers,” her foul and vulgar persona exemplify her politics. In other words, she could be the poster child for the always angry, endlessly anti-Trump “nasty” woman so common on the left today.

For all the left’s hyperbolic posturing about so-called “privilege” on the right, as David French recently alluded to, few today are more privileged than those who occupy the left-wing media. Whether news or entertainment, as long as the right—especially the Christian right—is the target, leftist mediacrats are nearly untouchable. Along with Bee, there are a myriad of examples.

After Roseanne’s gross insult of Valarie Jarrett, MSNBC invited Jarrett on their network to discuss the incident. On her left sat MSNBC host Al Sharpton. As Miss Jarrett herself might put it, and as Jeffrey Lord did put it, the event was a “teachable moment.” As Lord notes, whether blacks, whites, Jews, Chinese, Korean, Greeks, and so on, Sharpton has a loooong—often obscene and unapologetic—history of racial insults.

All of this was known when MSNBC hired him seven years ago. It was also known when Sharpton became an advisor to then President Obama; he was even described as Obama’s “go-to man on race.” Having Al Sharpton as your “go-to man on race” is like having Harvey Weinstein as your “go-to man on sexual harassment” or Keith Olbermann as your “go-to man on responsible social commentary.”

Olbermann is the perfect conservative-hating metrosexual male counterpart to the raging vagina hat-wearing feminazis exemplified by Ms. Bee. In spite of his lengthy history of using whatever media platform that will allow him to revoltingly weaponize the English language, ABC/Disney—who fired Roseanne quicker than you can say “Worst Person in the World”—continues to provide him with the opportunity to spew his hate.

Whether Joy Behar, Susan Sarandon, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham, J.K. Rowling, Jennifer Lawrence, Jimmy Kimmel, Robert De Niro, George Clooney, Matt Damon, Danny Glover, Michael Moore, Seth Meyers, Stephen Colbert, and on, and on, and on, the left is littered with these hate-filled fools. Samantha Bee’s comments just happened to fall closest to Roseanne’s in their seemingly never-ending cycle of attacking anything or anyone that might put Donald Trump in a positive light.

And remember, these people hate Trump because of where they have placed their hope. Because they have foolishly placed most of their hope in the forces of this world—in other words, because they have made a god of government, and because Donald Trump currently represents the greatest threat to this false god—the Hollywood left is, and almost certainly will remain, unhinged in their efforts to stop him.

As long as President Trump acts on conservative—especially Christian conservative—principles, he is undermining the left’s attempts at remaking America into a nation our Founders would not recognize and reminds them that, at least to some extent, they are losing their grip on the American culture. Thus, he—and his allies—must be politically, or even personally, destroyed.

Samantha Bee is simply another agent in this attempted destruction and another voice preaching the perverse worldview that dominates modern liberalism. As long as she remains reliably faithful to the mission of promoting what is sacred to the modern left—unlike Roseanne Barr—she will be allowed to keep her job and continue her propaganda.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Black Sphere.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Friday, May 11, 2018

Liberals’ Lust for Their Own “Infinity Stones”

I recently took my children and one of their friends to see Avengers: Infinity War. (WARNING: movie spoilers ahead!) As a kid I was a fan of the superhero universe—Marvel and DC (remember these guys?)—and I’ve passed that interest on to my children. We’ve seen most of the Marvel and DC films. (Note to the studios: we will never attend the R-rated crap!) In spite of a wide array of characters with varying story lines, Marvel Studios has done a good job of weaving a common thread throughout multiple films in order to bring most of their characters together in Avengers: Infinity War.

This effort has proven to be wildly successful as Infinity War just had the biggest opening weekend of all-time. When we got to the point in the film where the plot—and the motives for the plot—were made clear, the thought occurred to me that those watching who are corrupted by a liberal worldview had to be conflicted, or at least confused.

Thanos—the chief antagonist of the film—is, of course, a murderous thug (who looks like the love-child of Barney the Dinosaur and King Kong). He has tremendous power and is bent on having things his way. And “his way” means killing off half of the universe. As the film makes clear, he is motivated to do such in order to bring “balance” to what he sees as an over-populated universe.

Sounding much like a member of the modern left and declaring that a planet’s—and the universe’s—resources are “finite,” Thanos sees himself not as a warrior or a conqueror, but as an agent of mercy—even a “savior.” He merely seeks “balance” so that we can all live happily ever after. So what if he has to murder billions in the process?

Several writers have already tackled the irony of a bunch of Hollywood leftists casting as a villain a Hulk-like being obsessed with fixing the “problem” of over-population. Whether championing the “right” to kill children in the womb, promoting the ever-imminent—but never realized—threat from “climate change,” and so on, the modern left has long used the myth of overpopulation to further their efforts at getting what they really want: power. If only they had the “Infinity Stones.”

The so-called “Infinity Stones” are the common thread skillfully woven throughout many of the previous Marvel films. There are six of these stones, with each giving its owner a unique and tremendous power. As explained in Guardians of the Galaxy, “[B]efore the universe first began, there were six singularities. These six singularities were then condensed into concentrated ingots. Whoever controls all six stones and wields them using the Infinity Gauntlet has the power to reshape reality.”

In other words, if one possesses all of the stones—Thanos’ goal in Infinity War—then one gains “omnipotence and omniscience.” At the end of Infinity War Thanos has all of the stones. He merely snaps his fingers and his plan for population control takes effect. Viewers watch as close to half of the Avengers heroes—along with half of the rest of humanity—are dissolved into ash (think of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt).

Whether big government liberalism, socialism, communism, and the like, modern leftists have long lusted for the power to “reshape” the world into their perverse version of “reality,” and a mere snap of their fingers would suit them just fine. We have seen a taste of this in the real world. The electoral process has often proven too slow or unreliable for today’s liberals, thus the judicial or executive equivalent of a finger snap has often given American liberals exactly what they wanted.

Everything from abortion to same-sex “marriage,” immigration policy (DACA), environmental policy (e.g., Obama’s war on coal, war on oil, etc.—thanks to his “pen and phone”), perverse gender edicts, dangerous military edicts (based on an ignorant and perverse view of gender), and the like, have been achieved via some political “snap of a finger.” Whatever the excuse—overpopulation, global warming, sexual “rights,” gun control, health care, “hate” speech, “income inequality,” and so on—liberals look for most any opportunity to gain the power necessary to usher in “utopia.” If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Of course, the real-world equivalent of the Infinity Stones is totalitarianism, and far too many of today’s American left are far too comfortable with an all-powerful state led by those who are “wise in their own eyes” and devoted to the “theology of self.” Of course, those liberals seeking to win an election in the U.S. will never (yet) admit this, but if you watch and listen closely enough, you will hear the little totalitarians reveal themselves. Leftist politicians, pundits, and sheeple alike have given strong clues that oftentimes, they would just rather not bother with democracy, much less our Constitution. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

This is particularly true when devoted leftists in the media and on campuses feel threatened by information and ideas (read: the truth)—from the likes of the “thought outlaws” who operate in the “Intellectual Dark Web”—that they don’t like. It has become commonplace for these agitprop provocateurs of the American left to encourage and actually employ violence, threaten careers, and otherwise advocate for censorship when it comes to anything that threatens the tenets of modern liberalism. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Whether to silence man-made climate change skeptics or pro-lifers, punish Christians, grab guns, or even reverse a presidential election, democrat politicians—where they still have power in the U.S.—have displayed a stunning penchant for totalitarianism. Remember when a cadre of democrat Attorneys General—including the now infamous Eric Schneiderman—stood with Al Gore and threatened—via “investigations”—“climate skeptics?”

Remember when California passed a law that forced pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion? (The case challenging this “law” was just heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.) In addition, California wants to outlaw leaving the homosexual lifestyle (via the infamous “You Must Stay Gay” bill) and thus criminalize the Bible. So that their attempts at implementing their totalitarian dreams is much easier, liberals want to criminalize guns, thus the 2nd Amendment has got to go. If only they had the Infinity Stones.

Ironically, few things make a modern liberal squeal louder than the notion that there is an Absolute Power to which we all will eventually have to give an account. Almost certainly—if possible—they would snap their fingers and make Him disappear as well. Thank God there’s no such thing as Infinity Stones.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Christianity was (and is) Right about Sex and Marriage

On January 31, 2018, my wife and I celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary. At the end of this year, in mid-December, my wonderful parents will celebrate their 50th. Before my beloved father-in-law was criminally taken from us by a drunk driver in 2015, he and my sweet mother-in-law were married for almost 46 years. Taken together, those are rare numbers these days in our slow-to-marry, quick-to-divorce, sex-crazed, hook-up culture.

Like every other marriage in human history, none of the unions mentioned above were, or are, perfect. Each of us has certainly seen our fair share of tough times, but, as far as I know, there has never been even a hint of adultery, and “divorce” has never even been whispered. Of course, if any of us decided to abandon what God has revealed and go our own way when it comes to sex and marriage, disaster would result.

If you are similarly blessed in marriage within your own family, then almost certainly you or your spouse, parents, siblings, in-laws, and the like, subscribe to—or at least are heavily influenced by—Christian teaching on marriage, sex, and the family. Tragically, that is fewer and fewer Americans.

As we broadly examine the condition of and attitudes toward sex, marriage, and the family across the U.S., “disaster” would be a fair description of what exists. U.S. marriage rates continue to remain at record lows, while out-of-wedlock births remain at record highs. Again, the results of these trends are particularly devastating for children. The breakdown of the family is the single greatest cause of poverty in the U.S. As Robert Rector pointed out years ago, “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.”

In order to further their big government agenda, modern liberals often point to education as the answer to poverty in America. However, marriage is a far better weapon against poverty than is education. Again, as Rector points out, “being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.” In addition, a child in a single-parent home where the parent is a college graduate is nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as a child living with his or her married parents whose highest level of education is completing high school.

Along with poverty, children brought up outside of a marriage relationship (with their biological mom and dad) face a significantly greater danger of experiencing physical and sexual abuse. As Marripedia points out:
  • The rate of physical abuse is 3 times higher in the single parent family. 
  • The rate of physical abuse is 4 times higher if mother is cohabiting with the child’s biological father (unmarried). 
  • The rate of physical abuse is 5 times higher if the child is living in a married step family. 
  • The rate of physical abuse is 10 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend. 
The rates for sexual abuse are even worse than physical abuse:
  • The rate of sexual abuse is 5 times higher in the single parent family and when both biological parents are cohabiting (i.e. unmarried). 
  • The rate of sexual abuse is 8.6 times higher if the child is living in a married step family. 
  • The rate of sexual abuse is 20 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend. 
As both of the last bullet points above imply, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America is with mom and her live-in boyfriend. However, because modern liberalism teaches that we have the “right” to do whatever we wish in the sexual realm, without any consequences, the most dangerous place for a child in America is in the womb. This is particularly tragic considering that a mother’s womb should be one of the safest places in the universe.

In a wicked attempt to justify the killing of the most helpless and innocent among us, aided and abetted by Hollywood and the Democrat Party, for decades the left in America has de-humanized the unborn. In other words, ignoring what Christianity has long revealed about human life, tens of millions of unborn children have suffered death because liberals in the United States have rejected basic science and morality.

After a half century of denying the irrefutable science of life in the womb, liberals have become quite adept at denial of almost any truth. Thus, we now must debate who is a man and who is a woman—along with pretending that there is all sorts of in-between nonsense along the mythical “gender spectrum.”

As long as American liberals hold any significant amount of political or judicial power—especially within or over the federal courts—don’t be surprised to see the gender debate go the way of the marriage debate. Ignoring the laws of the Law Giver, ruling in favor of the “right” to kill children in the womb (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), the perpetually deceived Anthony Kennedy declared a quarter of a century ago, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Of course, Kennedy reinforced this ignorant thinking with his perverse decision on marriage. Because such folly is almost standard today among the left, it wouldn’t be surprising to read a ruling from a federal judge that declares a man has a “right” to live his life as a woman, because “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence…”

And, if Justice Anthony Kennedy has such a say in the matter, given his previous decisions on abortion and marriage, don’t be surprised to see Hollywood attempt to lionize his life through film. Of course, such a film will likely be at least R-rated, filled with lots of graphic sex—especially homosexual sex. Remember, Kennedy also voted in favor of, and wrote the opinion for, Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned all U.S. laws against sodomy.

Depictions of graphic sex have become the sine qua non of Hollywood productions and have given rise to the massive and deadly porn industry. As U.S. marriage rates plummet and out-of-wedlock births skyrocket, porn use and STD rates are at astronomical levels.

In 2015, viewers watched a shocking 4,392,486,580 hours—equal to over 500,000 years—of porn on PornHub. As millions of Americans have replaced healthy human relationships with porn addiction, no doubt this obsession with fake sex has played a role in the declining rate of marriage in the U.S.

Additionally, and equally shocking, according to The New York Times, 110 million Americans—over one-third of our population—are now saddled with a sexually transmitted disease. Thus, when they’re not watching porn, many Americans are headed to a bar, a club, a house party, a frat party, and the like, looking for their next “hook-up,” and many are paying a steep physical—along with emotional—price.

Because those who rebel in the sexual realm are prone to rebel as it pleases them, individuals steeped in the hook-up culture are prone to a whole host of risky behaviors. As a 2016 study of American high school students published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals, teens who engage in dangerous (and sinful) sexual activity—such as homosexuality or heterosexual promiscuity—were much more likely also to engage in other unhealthy activities.

Teenagers least likely to put their health and lives in danger (along with the health and lives of others) are those who are choosing to follow the moral precepts of their Creator by refraining from sex until they are married. We didn’t used to need a “study” to know such was the case, because waiting for sex until marriage is exactly what Christianity teaches.

If much of America continues to embrace the lies of Hollywood—and the rest of the perverse modern left—on sex and the like, the next study, the next set of data, along with many personal anecdotes more and more of us will witness, will continue to paint a bleak picture for our nation. May those of us who’ve seen the light never stop working to help turn this tide and reverse the damage as we have opportunities, and where we have influence.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, 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

Friday, December 15, 2017

Liberals Wrote the Book on Sexual Immorality

Perhaps the most guarded tenet of all of modern liberalism is the idea that people should be able to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm. Whether killing children in the womb, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, fighting for the “right” of men to use women’s restrooms—and for women to cheat at sports, and for men to take trophies from womencelebrating the sexualization of children, everything else in the perverse LGBT agenda, and so on, much of what modern liberals hold dear hinges on sexual hedonism.

Thus, as others have already well noted, the sex scandals that have rocked Hollywood and Washington D.C. are some of the least shocking things to come across the news wire since learning that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, et al, bloated their baseball stats with the aid of performance enhancing drugs. (You don’t go from this to this without a little something extra in your milk.)

In other words, seeing media reports that reveal that many Hollywood and D.C. liberals are sexual deviants is like a 60 Minutes story that reveals that fat men like fried chicken. But hey, at least in large part, the liberal perverts in politics and entertainment are not hypocrites. They’re only practicing what they preach. And preach they do.

In spite of notions to the contrary, liberalism is obsessed with sex. Of course, most liberals would have us believe that this is the case with conservatives, especially Christian conservatives. Yet it is the politics and policies of liberalism that have forced Americans to debate what was once widely rejected as immoral and even unimaginable.

Led almost exclusively by those corrupted by a liberal worldview, for decades the entertainment industry—whether big screen, small screen, print, or internet media—has saturated American culture with sexual immorality. Acts of “mere” sexual harassment have long ranked extremely low on the scale of what is sexually outrageous in the entertainment industry.

On American screens, tales of men chasing women for nothing more than sex has garnered hundreds of millions of laughs and has been used to titillate generations of young and old men alike. Additionally, what modern action or drama film or television series is devoid of depicting—as C.S. Lewis bemoaned—“four bare legs in a bed?” These days, bare legs alarm almost no one. Many supposed “mainstream” Hollywood productions are now filled with graphic nudity and sex—what used to be called “pornography.”

Adultery, fornication, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, and virtually every other sexual immorality imaginable has long been promoted and celebrated by the modern left. Along with the entertainment, news, and political arenas, schools, corporations, and even churches are filled with, and being led by, those who are dangerously, and often tragically, sexually deceived. Thus, if not directly debasing themselves by being personally involved in these wicked sexual activities, blind to the notion that some things don’t even deserve a debate, millions of Americans have at least been misled into thinking that such behavior must be “tolerated.”

Tragically, today’s liberals are so desperate to rid the world of anyone and anything that contradicts liberal dogma on sex, they will tolerate almost anything, except even a hint of Christian teaching on sexual morality. Demonstrating the fallacy that is today’s “tolerance,” liberals want their opponents to just shut up when it comes to sex. (No doubt this was much of the motivation behind the attacks on Roy Moore.)

Refusing to remain silent themselves—and because they’ve made a god of government—liberals are looking to make political hay out of the #MeToo meme. Far from wanting to reform what their worldview has wrought, liberals are hoping to further purge politics and the culture of those who stand opposed to progressive perversions.

As they look to lead as much of the country as possible to embrace the “values” of Sodom and Gomorrah, in addition to silencing their moral enemies, many liberals also want revenge. Hence, the war on Christians—and those like-minded—and the war on morality. Along with the threat of fines and even jail time, Christians brave enough to oppose the hedonistic agenda of the modern left face the loss of their jobs or their businesses.

With little thought to the illogic and hypocrisy behind their helter-skelter approach to sexual morality, the liberal media has been predictably sloppy. Before the #MeToo anti-sexual harassment meme caught on, liberals were lecturing us on the so-called “rape culture” allegedly so prevalent in America. Of course, today’s liberals are almost as qualified to instruct us on a rape culture as they are on sexual harassment.

When magazines devoted to promoting pornography, prostitution, and the “hook-up” culture decided to “shine the light” on the supposed college campus rape culture, no one should have been surprised at the disastrous outcome. And don’t be surprised to see similar results as liberals in the media rush to smear conservatives—particularly politicians—for “sexual misconduct.”

Real glee sets in among the liberal media when they get to report on conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—who’ve been caught with their pants down. Of course, liberals in the news media vigorously hunt down these stories (because such stories are often very hard to find), while often ignoring the immoral—and often illegal—dalliances of their like-minded friends and cohorts in politics, entertainment, and the information media.

Democrat politics and Hollywood “values”—aided and abetted by like-minded news media propagandists—is a marriage made in hell. As long as their wicked sexual agenda thrives, Americans—and America—will suffer. Something that more and more of us should ponder: maybe God was right about sex.

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Harvey Weinstein Proves Why the Left Really Hates Trump

Chalk up the Harvey Weinstein sex scandal as one of the most unsurprising big media stories of the modern era. It’s like when a magazine run by liberals and devoted to promoting and encouraging the “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” lifestyle flubs a story about campus rape. (And subsequently—and quite deservedly—gets sued into near oblivion.) In other words, almost no one should be surprised that a big-time Hollywood producer and film studio executive such as Harvey Weinstein is a sexual miscreant.

If you want to find a “rape culture,” look no further than Tinseltown. Hollywood is littered with men—and women—who are sexual predators and provocateurs ready and willing to take advantage of most anyone and/or any situation in order to satisfy their lust and/or greed. Again, it should come as little surprise that an industry built on the notion that “sex sells” is filled with people who act out that perverse proverb for their personal pleasure or personal profit. People who have no qualms about filling their movies and television shows with smut are also prone to filling their personal lives with smut.

I can think of no culture, no industry, no group of people less qualified to lecture anyone—especially the culture at large—about sexual immorality than the depraved, sex-crazed deviants that permeate Hollywood, U.S.A. The smug Jimmy Kimmel—whose early claim to fame was as the co-host of Comedy Central’s trashy The Man Show—should get nowhere near a compass of any sort, but especially a “moral compass.” Likewise, most every well-known Hollywood actor, actress, producer, director, et al, has played a role in corrupting the sexual mores of America.

Thus, when these “nasty” Hollywood harlots, gigolos, pimps, perverts, and like-minded stooges in the general public (thank God, an electoral minority—for now!) don their vagina hats and Antifa masks and start howling about the sexual misconduct of President Trump—or any other politician or pundit of whom they disapprove (read: Christian, conservative, or republican)—we know that it’s not really the sexual immorality that troubles them.

In spite of the claims of Hillary Clinton and her ilk, nothing President Trump has done in the sexual realm runs afoul of the sexual standards presented by Hollywood—which, of course, are the sexual standards of liberalism. It’s not what President Trump “has said about women”—like many of us, in his worst moments he sounds like one corrupted by liberalism—that sets liberal snowflakes to melting. Rather, it’s the threat that conservatism and Christianity present to their selfish, hedonistic lifestyles that really terrifies these Hollywood hypocrites.

Craving the power that big government affords them—and with little to no qualms about any perceived (or real) hypocrisy—these liberals take every opportunity presented them to go after republican politicians—especially the President. Joy Behar recently explained this quite well when discussing Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy. Murphy, from Pennsylvania and a member of the U.S. House Pro-Life Caucus, was caught encouraging his mistress to get an abortion. He is resigning next month, as well he should.

Addressing her aghast audience, Behar attempted to explain how democrats like herself don’t have a hypocrisy problem when complaining about the behavior of men like Tim Murphy. As she tellingly revealed, “the difference between me and the people who voted for [Murphy] is the Democrats are not the family of values…They’re not hypocrites — they’re just dogs. You see the difference?” Yeah, we got it. According to Behar’s liberal logic, it’s better to be a reliably immoral “dog” than a hypocrite.

Yet, whether in their TV monologues, protests, talk shows, political speeches, tweets, posts, and so on, as they attack President Trump and court the American electorate, liberals aren’t presenting themselves as “dogs.” Far from it. As they continue the Obama mission of remaking America into a nation our Founders would not recognize, the modern American left presents itself as wise, rational, reasonable, and compassionate. They brazenly tell us that they have the solutions we crave if only we would give them the power to act.

As long as President Trump acts on conservative—especially Christian conservative—principles, he is undermining the left’s agenda and reminds them that, at least to some extent, they are losing their grip on the American culture. Thus, he must be politically destroyed.

Andrew Breitbart often declared that politics is downstream from culture. If this is to be believed, then the last decade has seen the culture—at least the voting culture—slip from the hands of the modern left. In addition to the federal courts, the U.S. Presidency was the last firm grip liberals had on power in D.C., and until about 9 p.m. on November 8, 2016, they were quite sure they were going to control at least the executive branch of the U.S. government. When this was lost, an angry despair set in, one that has rarely let up since.

The more that Trump appoints sound conservative judges and officials, the more he works at repealing Obamacare and building a wall, the more tax money he keeps out of the hands of abortionists, the more religious liberty is restored—the more that the federal government operates according to the laws of the Law Giver, the more President Trump and his allies will be vilified and attacked.

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, 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

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The Taxing Moral Waxing of Hollywood Hypocrites

This column is almost too easy to write. I mean seriously, how long does one have to examine the life and work of a Hollywood liberal to find immorality? Likewise, how long must anyone endure virtually any political or moral rant from a Hollywood liberal to spot his or her hypocrisy?

Donald Trump issued a substantively sound—though perhaps poorly executed—executive order on refugees attempting to enter the U.S., and liberals across America find another excuse to avoid work (or to avoid looking for work) and conduct a protest. I suppose we should be used to this by now, but somehow the modern left always seems to find some way to take their protests fits to new heights lows. Of course, leading the way into the verbal gutter is the Hollywood elite.

Of course, Hollywood liberals—perhaps better known as the “people-who-pretend-to-be-other-people” as Chicks on the Right describe them—are typically familiar with gutters of all forms, so no one should be surprised that they would drag down political discourse as well. The only thing that surpasses their stunning ignorance and immorality is their hypocrisy. (Perhaps they should have an awards show for these efforts.)

There are many examples from which to punctuate this piece (the recent actions by Madonna and Ashley Judd come to mind), but none is better than the Tweet fired off by pop-harlot Rihanna to her 69-plus million Twitter followers. (Does Twitter even have 69 million users?) In between creating albums that are most-deservedly adorned with the “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” label and performing in pornographic music videos (even the libs at the Daily Beast declared one of her recent efforts as “the most explicit music video in history”), Rihanna had time to declare herself “disgusted” at Trump’s refugee order.

She added, “The news is devastating! America is being ruined right before our eyes! What an immoral pig you have to be to implement such BS!!” Oh my, where to begin? First of all, when it comes to “disgusting” and the ruin of America, there are few in popular culture who have done more to heap moral devastation upon our culture than the “Duchess of Debauchery.” Reveling in her fame and fortune, Rihanna seems blind to the fact that in the realm of what might be called entertainment, only the vilest of pornographers has done more damage to American society than has she.

On the song—Needed Me—that spawned the above-mentioned video, Jon Caramanica of The New York Times writes that Rihanna “sings about using men for sex and disposing of them like tissues.” Lyrics such as “You was good on the low for a faded f**k,” verify Caramanica’s conclusion. (Along with their rampant vulgarities, why must such entertainers perpetuate an ignorant “Ebonics” form of the English language?) Along with multiple “f-bombs,” Needed Me is filled with other vulgarities, including offensive racial slurs.

Rihanna’s 2016 album containing Needed Me also contains a song entitled Sex with Me. (“Me” thinks there is a pattern here.) There’s no need to go into graphic details about the lyrics on that one. Your imagination is almost certainly correct. Not to be one-dimensional, along with her sexual filth and lies, Rihanna has also spewed many other forms of cultural garbage. In 2015, USA Today reported on public opinion related to Rihanna’s “dark, bloody, violent, and misogynistic” video B**ch Better Have My Money. In an op-ed on the video for The Daily Mail, Sarah Vine (the mother of a 12 year-old girl) wrote “By the time it had finished, I wondered whether I ought not to report (Rihanna) to the police. Charges: pornography, incitement to violence, racial hatred.”

Vine added that Rihanna “gesticulates incomprehensibly [a form of Ebonics sign language, no doubt] as though she were some genuine gangster (and not just a spoilt little rich popstar),” and spends much time with her “legs wide open.” So much so the latter that Vine concludes, “In fact, such is the frequency at which we get to view Rihanna’s gusset, I’m actually starting to wonder whether she might not have some kind of medical condition which prevents her from keeping her legs — as well as her stupid trap — shut.”

June Eric-Udorie of the New Statesman adds, “Of course what Rihanna has done is not new; you only have to do a quick YouTube search and you will find a multitude of music videos that just ooze misogyny.” Along with misogyny, graphic nudity, and drug use, B**ch Better Have My Money is graphically bloody, depicting torture, rape, and murder.

Of course, this is just a mere sampling of the vulgarities produced by Rihanna. (Sadder still, instead of being shunned and shamed—or even arrested—she’s appointed as “global ambassador to champion education.”) And likewise, Rihanna herself—though perhaps the leading candidate to be the poster child for the “nasty woman” title (my wife prefers “skank who needs Jesus”) so eagerly embraced by Ashley Judd and her liberal ilk—is far from alone in her cultural degradation. Virtually every movie, sit-com, cartoon, song, album, documentary, (in addition to most news broadcasts and lesson plans), and so on, produced from a liberal worldview (which is almost all of them) is morally corrupt.

There aren’t many other ways to say it: Hollywood is awash in immorality. Thus, for almost any Hollywood liberal to lament the actions of any so-called “immoral pig” is truly the height of hypocrisy. They should keep their mouths shut, but they won’t. Thus, whenever the likes of Rihanna attempts to provide moral instruction, it’s best just to turn off, tune out, and pray.

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