This is How You Handle "Transgender" Apologists in the Media

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis again demonstrates how one should handle the drive-by media. Recently, a liberal, activist judge--U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle--ruled that the Florida law protecting children from "gender affirming care" (e.g., genital mutilation, dangerous hormone treatments, and the like) was "unconstitutional." At a press conference yesterday (6/12), DeSantis was asked about appealing the ruling. The reporter asking the question wanted to know why tax payer dollars should go towards such an effort. DeSantis' reply is masterful:

Reporter question from today's press conference: "Your office told us that you plan to appeal the gender-affirming ruling from yesterday. So my question today, since we're talking about the budget of taxpayer dollars, why should taxpayer dollars go to this case for the appeal?"… pic.twitter.com/e7WuCdD1bM

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) June 12, 2024

Some of the text of Gov. DeSantis' comments:

Because it's wrong to mutilate minors. It is wrong to perform a sex change on a 16-year-old. You're not allowed to get a tattoo, but somehow, you can have your privates cut off? Give me a break. This is wrong, and I would also say, this has already been decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. They upheld Alabama's law, which was almost identical to Florida's law. This will be reversed, there's no question it will be reversed.

Think about it. When the Founding Fathers were creating the Constitution, and when the First Congress passed the Bill of Rights, or even when they passed the reconstruction amendments in the 1860s, do you think a single person involved in that thought that there was a constitutional right to do this genital mutilation? It's ridiculous. Of course, a state can protect children.

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

GOP: Do Your Job and CONFIRM KAVANAUGH!

Again we see one of the big reasons why Donald Trump was elected U.S. President: unlike so many in the GOP, he fights. So we now know the name of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser: Christine Blasey Ford. She's a democrat-donating Bernie Sanders supporter who teaches clinical psychology at Palo Alto University in California.

Even more telling, the lawyer she's hired is D.C. swamp-dweller Debra Katz. As Townhall notes,

Katz...has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as "miscreants" who are worse than deplorables...readers should remember that Katz treated Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against President Bill Clinton very differently in the 1990s...Katz dismissed Jones' assertions on March 30th,1998 on CNN's "Talkback Live" saying that, "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."

Katz continued to argue throughout the 90s that because Jones could not show that the harassment was "severe and pervasive," she did not have a case. In 1998, Katz told the media that, "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.’

But, of course, not in this case. This is because, as I noted on Twitter, Judge Kavanaugh is a good man, an excellent judge, and a reliable conservative, and liberals hate him for it all. These accusations by Ford are nothing but last ditch Clarence Thomas-like theater that reeks of political desperation. As Erick Erickson puts it,

Here we have one Bernie Sanders supporter who waited about 30 years before telling anyone and did so during a therapy session, which itself raises questions about whether this is real or a therapist contrived "recovered memory." At the time, Brett Kavanaugh was on the United States Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh's accuser did nothing publicly until 2018, thirty-five years after the accusation.

The accusation itself is that Kavanaugh, then a teenager, tried to force himself on to her at a party while drunk. Kavanaugh and his accused friend both vehemently deny the accusation. While I suspect the accuser will bring forward some friends who claim she told them at the time, because that is just how convenient this story is, thus far none have come forward.

What we do have, however, are 65 women who have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school who have vouched for his character since high school. We have a herd of reporters who accused the GOP of clearly knowing about the accusation because they could not conceive of 65 women working through the night to defend their friend's character. That not only speaks to the poor character of the reporters, but also to the fact that most political reporters in DC are already pre-disposed to oppose Kavanaugh.

We have dozens of female colleagues who have come forward to defend Brett Kavanaugh's character. We have moms of basketball players and those same female players defending him.

We have no pattern of conduct. We have no multiple accusers. We have no evidence. We have one Bernie Sanders donor against close to 100 women and girls who say this is outside the character of Brett Kavanaugh.

If the GOP decides to entertain this, we will start seeing this pattern repeatedly where one accusation from decades ago is given more weight than a lifetime of work and character witnesses that span a nominee's lifetime. Democrats want to weaponize the #MeToo movement to sabotage Brett Kavanaugh. The irony is that they are doing it to protect an abortion industry that preys mostly on innocent girls in the womb.

It seems that retiring GOP Senator Jeff Flake has decided to "entertain this." After Ford's identity became known today, Senator Flake said, "We said before that these allegations were anonymous and uncorroborated. That is no longer true." He then went on to say, "We can't vote until we hear more." As I noted in a Tweet to Arizona's new "maverick": What "corroboration?! There's no "corroboration" with Kavanaugh's accuser. It's still just her word. The only thing different is that we now know her name.

Is this Flake's "NeverTrump" hatred spewing forth? John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks so:

Kavanaugh unequivocally denies Ford’s allegation, and the only witness to the event (per Ford), Mark Judge, says “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” I think Ms. Ford is pretty obviously lying (don’t get me started on the friendly “lie detector test” that the Washington Post says she passed), or, on the most charitable explanation, possibly has Brett Kavanaugh confused with someone else. 

In any event, the idea that a 30 to 40 year old story of this sort–He tried to kiss me! He lay on top of me!–that has never been heard before, can derail the nomination of a man who by all accounts, including those of political adversaries, is of the most sterling possible character, is ridiculous. 

Despite the feebleness of Ford’s complaint, it is easy to understand why the Democrats are clinging to it like a life raft. But what could possibly prompt Jeff Flake, who ran for office and was elected as a Republican, to join in their attempt to block one of the most superbly qualified jurists ever appointed to the Court? There is only one answer: his insane hatred for President Trump.

As any sound-minded conservative, or even devoted republican, should well know: The democrats and their stooges in the media are going to seek to destroy WHOMEVER is a conservative nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who would've gladly cast their vote for Kavanaugh last week should also note, THIS is the best they can do with Kavanaugh: uncorroborated accusations from HIGH SCHOOL!

I warned the GOP during the Gorsuch hearings, "Gird Your Loins and be ready for Battle over the Supreme Court." Now is the time for republicans to do what they were elected to do! The wall's not being built, Obamacare's not been repealed. Among other things, republicans were elected to nominate and approve judges like Kavanaugh! Take your cue from President Trump and FIGHT! Now do your job GOP and seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court!

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

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

What—and When—Will Be the Next Chappaquiddick?

I was born 11 days after Ted Kennedy left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown (or suffocate) in Poucha Pond on Chappaquiddick Island. Though I’m more familiar than most with the infamous events of July 18, 1969, throughout my life I, like most others, have heard surprisingly little about the details of what should have been one of the most told—albeit tragic—stories of American political figures.

After Miss Kopechne’s death, instead of facing a jury, resigning in shame, or losing in a landslide, Ted Kennedy—aided and abetted by a sympathetic liberal American media—continued his career in politics and went on to become (to those on the left) the “Lion of the Senate.” Kennedy served an obscene 46-plus years in the U.S. Senate and, by 1980, even had the hubris to seek the U.S. Presidency.

While in office, Kennedy was an unapologetic champion of modern American liberalism, which, of course, is why the liberals in the media protected him. It took death to remove Kennedy from office in 2009—an all-too frequent occurrence among our entitled political elite.

Nearly a decade after his death, and in spite of the efforts of some powerful people on the left, along with inaction by the mainstream media, an independent film studio has finally gotten around to telling the ugly story about Kennedy’s lust, drinking, neglect, selfishness, and cowardice, which led to Miss Kopechne’s death. With the film Chappaquiddick, it’s only taken about 50 years for the mainstream media to give us, from many indications (I’ve yet to see the film), a truthful re-telling of the events that should’ve at least ended the political career of—but more justly sent to jail—the last of the infamous brood that was born to Joe Kennedy.

While the world finally gets to witness the unvarnished truth of the events of Chappaquiddick, in the name of lust, greed, or political power, the modern left continues to deceive. Whether the personal failings of democrats such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the illicit past of democrats like Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren, or the kooky—yet dangerous—causes of democrats such as Al Gore and Bernie Sanders, an inevitable reckoning with the truth awaits each of these individuals, those who’ve conducted themselves similarly, and their enablers.

Far more dangerous than the deceptions that enable the political rise (or line the pockets) of individuals are the ideological lies that form the foundation of, and thoroughly permeate, modern liberalism. In fact, it is for the perverse cause of liberalism that corrupt individuals are protected, promoted, and even revered. Though their personal lives might embody a liberal worldview, if one is seen as a threat to liberalism—i.e. Donald Trump—then any and all skeletons are quickly tossed out of the closet and loudly and exhaustively waved around for all to see.

Perhaps in another 50 years Americans can watch The Great Russian Collusion Delusion. In this future blockbuster, my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren can watch the story of how nefarious elements within the Democrat Party, the Obama administration, the establishment media, the FBI, the DOJ, and the “Never-Trump” crowd relentlessly pushed a fake Trump-Russia-collusion conspiracy. People a half century from now would learn that, instead of finding (or manufacturing) any real illicit election collusion, the Trump haters themselves conspired to steal, and later overturn, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—a 304-227 electoral victory by Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

After a few more decades of failed predictions by the climate-change doomsayers, one of Mark Steyn’s children can write and direct the documentary film The Inconvenient Climate, or, alternatively, The Day After Global Warming Died. In what will surely become the greatest documentary film of all time, viewers will learn of what has been called “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.”

Now that we’re 45 years since the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling, and probably taking issue with what is “The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time,” a future champion of the pro-life community is likely to document the undisputed science of life in the womb and tell the horrific story of The Abortion Holocaust. Since 1973, over 60 million of the most innocent and helpless Americans have been killed in what should be one of the safest places in the universe—their mother’s womb.

Among many other riveting things, the bold truth-teller who artfully paints the real picture of this tragedy can reveal how abortion apologists—even well into the 21st century—regularly employed the same tactics of the Nazis and murderous communists and imperialists of the 20th century. Like today’s abortionists, these genocidal fools often dehumanized their targets so that it was easier to justify their slaughter.

The Abortion Holocaust can also show how indifference toward human life led to men like Kermit Gosnell. If you don’t know of Gosnell, it’s unsurprising. As was the case with Ted Kennedy (more than once), when Gosnell’s abortion “house of horrors”—where newborn children targeted for abortion were slaughtered even after they escaped their mother’s womb—came to light, the media ignored or attempted to cover for him. In spite of some strong efforts, Gosnell’s story has yet to be told.

As soon as real women get tired of losing athletic competitions to fake women—sometimes known as “trans-women”—the sports-themed film The Natural (Born Woman), or, alternatively, White Men Can Jump (Higher than Women), can be made. In this story the audience will learn how those corrupted by a liberal worldview, as in the case of a child in the womb, again ignored or denied science in the name of the perverse cause of sexual “tolerance” and allowed men to take trophies from women.

Likewise, as soon as enough children who suffered from being forced to grow up without a mother or a father—along with all of the other disadvantages that come from being exposed to the homosexual lifestyle—grow into adulthood, we can watch A Crying Shame.

In this film people will learn that—in spite of the electoral will of the American people—again mirroring the abortion debate, five unelected justices forced a legal re-definition of marriage upon the American people. Along with the suffering of helpless children, the audience will also learn how Christians were targeted by the vengeful LGBT left.

Because modern liberalism is littered with lies—because, as Fay Voshell (and others) have noted, the cornerstone of liberalism is The Lie that we get to determine truth for ourselves—future filmmakers should be busy. Hopefully the success of Chappaquiddick will encourage them.

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

Yes—and Of Course—Children Prefer Liberalism

Conservatism is, in a sense, an acknowledgement of and a surrender to the truth. We conserve “what works,” those traditions, practices, and ideas that have long held the test of time—such as marriage being the union of one man and one woman, the idea that if a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t eat, all men are created equal, life in the womb is real and precious—because they are rooted in the Truth.

The most significant principle of conservatism is that our rights come, not from man or from government, but from God. All laws of men, all governments instituted by men, should be rooted in the Laws of the Law Giver. Any law, any government that does not do such is folly, and should be treated as such. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us,

A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.

Because what is tried and true can sometimes be viewed as stale and boring, and because being moral is often difficult, conservatism is frequently presented with challenges that liberalism is not. Because the moral demands of liberalism are light and few, life in this world is often much easier for a liberal. This is especially true in politics. For liberals—usually, but not always, democrats—governing becomes a matter of seeking what is popular and pleasing, not what is right.

Much of our childhood is spent doing the same. We are by our nature selfish (many of us say “sinful”), self-centered creatures. We want what we want, when we want it. As children, we want the toys, food, entertainment, and so on, that make us feel good, or at least what we think will make us feel good, because others have told us, or sold us, on such an idea.

At one time or another—especially when we were kids—we were all lured by one or more of the tenets of modern liberalism. Almost certainly, to some extent, each of us bought what liberalism was selling. Those of us who grew out of childhood learned many good and necessary lessons about not always getting what we want. We learned that the shiny, flashy, tasty, fun-looking things that so often lured us were frequently foolish, wasteful, unhealthy, and sometimes even deadly.

As I implied, we are born into our selfish way of thinking—one might say we are all born little liberals—and good, faithful parenting helps train us out of it. Tragically, far too many of us these days are getting no such training, and tens of millions of Americans are stuck in perpetual childhood. Thus, liberalism endures.

Liberals knew well what they were doing as they worked for decades at destroying the family. As generations of Americans have been raised in broken homes—often by broken people—it makes it easier to make them wards of the state. After all, if you don’t have parents who care much or provide much for you, why not look to Uncle Sam and his trillions?

One of the great lies of modern liberalism—perhaps THE great lie—is that the world owes us something, and it’s up to us to do whatever it takes to get it. If one has the “right” to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm, why take responsibility for an unplanned pregnancy? And if we don’t have to worry about sex leading to children, why get married at all? And if we want to get married, why can’t we define what is marriage?

If one has the “right” to healthcare, why shouldn’t the government—or someone else—provide it? Along that line of thinking, why shouldn’t food, housing, clothing, education, transportation, and so on, be viewed as “rights,” and thus as things someone else owes me? Or, if one has the “right” to a “liveable wage,” why not force businesses and corporations to pay it so that all of these things can be afforded? And if students have a right to be safe in schools, why not take away everyone’s guns?

Because such a mindset is so familiar to them, it’s pretty easy to convince children—or those who think and reason like a child—that this is how the world should be. Thus, we shouldn’t be surprised that so many students—whether elementary, middle, high school, or college—are eager to take up liberal causes. And with most of the country being educated from a liberal worldview, the real surprise should be that any students at all—at least those in government schools—shun the causes of liberalism.

It’s not enough for conservatives to guard our own children against—and train them out of—such thinking. Because so many of today’s American children are exposed to nothing but a liberal worldview, we must instruct them to the contrary. More importantly, we must faithfully live out the truth and be an example to all of the world that, though the truth is often hard and unpopular, it is always worth it.

(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

Godlessness, Leftism, and the World’s Crapholes

One of the least known but most influential characters of early American history is the industrialist Samuel Slater. My book, The Miracle and Magnificence of America, details some of Slater’s industrial exploits. One of my significant resources on Slater’s life and work came from author George S. White who, in 1836, published his book, Memoir of Samuel Slater: The Father of American Manufactures. I found White’s book to be a fascinating account of early industrial America.

In the introduction to Slater’s memoir, while singing the praises of the industrious Slater—he’s known today as the “Father of the American Industrial Revolution,”—Mr. White also speaks against the “Occupy” fools of the early 19th century:

We envy not those self-styled patriots, whose thirst for office and distinction allows them to deceive and cajole their fellow citizens, by prejudicing them against the talented and enterprising part of society. Thus teaching them discontent, and prejudicing them against the necessary arrangements to promote the general welfare, making them the tools of their sordid selfish policy…

Likewise, and no-doubt aware of the “bickering caudillos” (military dictators) who plagued 19th century South America, White contrasts life in the United States with that of South America:

A state of society, not founded the principles of honest industry, must be degraded and low; and like the inhabitants of South America must be wretched miserable. Mankind must be usefully and honourably employed, in order to be virtuous and happy. In proof of this position, compare the condition of South America with the United States, and more especially with that part of the United States manufacturing establishments have come into being and risen eminence. The mighty contrast in the condition and character of the people, is altogether greater than that formed by the hand of nature in the two countries themselves. South America, particularly that part in the neighbourhood of the La Plata, in the hands of New Englanders, would at once become the paradise of world, did they retain their moral and intellectual habits… 

With governments in distraction, and so enfeebled as to exert no force except by the sword and bayonet, vice, disorder, and confusion everywhere prevail. The finest fields in the world for agriculture are suffered to remain barren and desolate, or to be traveled by wandering herds. Indolence and enfeeble the hands and put out the eyes of the inhabitants. Roaming in poverty, filth, and pollution, they are totally blind to their advantages and privileges: they are tossed about by wind of prejudice and passion. Trained to view labour as a degradation, while trampling the most prolific fields and possessing everything requisite, and of the first qualities, for food and clothing, they would be obliged to go naked and starve, were it not for the industry of other nations. As it now is, robbers and assassins fill their streets, and thousands are disappearing by the only species of industry for which they have an adaptation, that of destroying each other.

Sounds like much of South America today! Or, if you prefer, and as President Trump allegedly put it, a “shi*hole” (or “shi*house”). In other words, what makes a society a literal and living craphole hasn’t changed much in nearly two centuries. If you want to find the crapholes of the world, one need look no further than where godlessness or leftism—often found together—dominate.

Of course, the world’s crapholes are often riddled with poverty. According to Business Insider—and as I alluded to years ago—most of the world’s poorest nations are “under authoritarian regimes where corruption is rampant.” Few things are more synonymous with modern leftism than corruption and authoritarianism.

Note as well how many of the poorest and most authoritarian nations are run by Islamists. As I’ve often noted, the godless false religion of Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a very violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backward, and thus, has produced many of the world’s crapholes.

Naturally, the world’s crapholes are filled with filth. Along with garbage, human waste, and nasty water, and no matter what list you use, the world’s dirtiest cities are typically also filled with some form of leftism and spiritual darkness. The same goes for the world’s most dangerous countries. And note again that those plagued by Islam dominate the list.

Often accompanying danger and filth is death. Unsurprisingly, the nations with the lowest life expectancy are the same ones showing up on the other craphole lists.

Two craphole-producing products of leftist ideology that, in spite of numerous and horrific failures, still plague the world today are socialism and communism. No matter the specifics of the “ism” or the frequency or the scale of the devastation, modern leftists continue to seek to put so much power in the hands of so few.

If you think I’m being unfair to the rest of the world, fret not. Tragically amazing—given our vast amount of rich natural and human resources—the United States has more than its fair share of crapholes. Almost always these are municipalities where democrats have ruled for decades and where godlessness—typically accompanied by a good dose of hedonism—and leftism—usually called “liberalism” in America—dominate the landscape.

Of course, it’s not the skin color of the people but rather rotten political and religious ideologies that produce toilet-like living conditions. Also, the vast majority of people living in the crapholes of the world are there through little to no fault of their own (except for those who continue to elect democrats) and, in most cases, need the help of others to escape or improve their conditions. The United States can’t import all of those suffering in the world’s crapholes, but we can certainly play a role in exporting what they really need.

The surest way to keep people from living in a craphole is to provide them with liberty, but not liberty alone. As the great Edmund Burke put it when observing the French revolution, “The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations.” Liberty should always be accompanied by the “moral chains” provided by Christianity; otherwise you end up with Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, or Baltimore.

(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

The Truth behind the Deaths of “Transgenders”

In case you missed it—which, sadly, no less than the U.S. Secretary of State made difficult—November 20 was “International Transgender Day of Remembrance.” The day focuses on memorializing the world’s gender-deluded who were victims of violence. By my estimate—I didn’t count them all—the list contains about 300 people.

Likewise, many liberal outlets in the American mainstream media—redundant, I know—took the opportunity to paint violence against the gender-deluded as some sort of epidemic. The headline in the largest newspaper in my state declared, “Violence against transgender people at all-time high in Georgia, nationally.”

Evidently an annual “all-time high” when it comes to the murder of individuals in the U.S. who choose to live a gender lie is 25. After the 11th death, which occurred in May of this year, one news outlet quoted a “transgender” activist declaring, “We are facing a national epidemic of violence [against ‘transgenders’].” More American Christians were recently killed in a single day as they peacefully gathered to worship their Creator. Following this horrific event, virtually no one in the mainstream American media wanted to talk about how Christians in the U.S. are suffering an “epidemic” of violence or even that we are merely increasingly under attack.

To further the perverse LGBT agenda, the liberal American media would rather promote a lie than reveal the plight of Americans who seek the Truth. Of course, an agenda built on lies must be furthered with lies. Murder is always tragic, and leave it to liberals to use the death of murdered Americans deceptively in order to advance their preferred—and again false—narrative. What’s more, worldwide, tens of thousands of Christians are martyred every year and the liberal-led media typically—and predictably—yawns.

Throughout the stories highlighting “International Transgender Day of Remembrance” was the implication that “transgenders” are being killed as the result of hate toward those who foolishly choose to live as the opposite sex. This was certainly the case with the American media and the 25 “transgenders” killed in the United States.

Of course, an additional implication is that this hate is the result of “ignorant” and “irrational” bias against the gender-deluded from conservatives and Christians. As is often the case with liberal narratives, few things could be further from the truth.

I examined online reports of each of the 25 American individuals on the Human Rights Campaign’s “Violence Against the Transgender Community” list for 2017. I looked specifically for mainstream media accounts—such as the Chicago Tribune, The Times Picayune (more than once), The Baltimore Sun, the Miami Herald, and so on. In other words, I looked for news publications that had almost every reason in the world to stick to the LGBT agenda on “transgender” deaths. Though the articles often hopefully hinted that a possible “hate criminal” was behind the murders, there was not one single person the media could definitively claim was the victim of a “hate crime.”

Quite the contrary, more than one “transgender” person died as the result of violently attacking the police. Others were involved in dangerous activities such as prostitution, gang activity, or drug use, and still others had shown themselves to be prone to violence. In other words, much—if not most—of the “violence against transgenders” is due to the poor lifestyle choices of those who reject simple science and morality.

If the mainstream media really wanted to tell the truth when it comes to death and the gender-deluded, it would do well to note the dangers of denying basic biology and the tragic results that often accompany attempting the impossible—“transitioning” from one sex to another. Instead, the media again embraces a lie and is guilty of malpractice.

Along with the dangerous and sometimes deadly consequences of mutilating an otherwise healthy body with unnecessary drugs and surgeries, those who suffer from gender delusions face a whole host of health issues that a media that truly cared should be eager to report. For example, the risk of cancer significantly increases when one’s body is subjected to gender “reorientation” drugs.

The suicide rate among the gender-deluded is far above that of the general population. A staggering number of youth who struggle with their gender engage in self harm. Worse still, many parents who’ve bought the liberal lie on gender are guilty of child abuse. Because their parents, their schools, their churches, and their media refused to tell them the truth about their gender, many older teens and young adults have found themselves scarred for life.

Death, disease, and despair do stalk the gender-deluded community, but not for the reasons most corrupted by liberalism would have us believe. Again, those struggling with their gender identity need serious physical, mental, and spiritual help. They do not need accommodation in living a lie.

(See this column at American Thinker and LifeSiteNews.)

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

“Feminist” Fools: Nasty is as Nasty Does

The day after Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the forty-fifth President of the United States, radical liberal feminazis took to the streets of Washington D.C. and put on a disgusting display of hedonism and hate. What was billed as the “Women’s March on Washington” quickly devolved into what any sound-minded political observer knew it would, and the worst of the American left was on unhinged display for all the world to see.

Clueless to the notion that their unseemly words and deeds were instrumental in Mr. Trump winning the White House and conservative candidates across the U.S. winning in historic fashion, angry leftist women held back little as they vented their political rage in the nation’s capital and across the U.S. Accompanied by a young female (perhaps a juvenile, which should surprise no one) with “F-ck Trump” written on the front of her shirt and both middle fingers singularly pointed at the sky, Drudge’s headlined blared, “Women’s March Turns Nasty.” Was there any real doubt it would?

What else is to be expected when angry liberals don’t get their way, especially in an election? Have you ever wondered why liberals get so upset when they lose elections? It is because they have placed their hope in the forces of this world, especially political ones. Thus, when they lose at the ballot box, often, a fit ensues. Those who understand that this world is not our home—that real hope and real change are not brought about by mere politicians—are not very prone to throwing vile and violent tantrums when an election doesn’t go their way.

The Drudge headline was only a sampling of the ugliness on display this past Saturday. The very appropriately named “Jezebel” magazine provides a revealing montage (warning: graphic language—of course) of the message liberals wanted to impart to the world after Donald Trump’s inauguration. Reporting on what he deemed a “p*ssy riot,” Byron York at the Washington Examiner provides another smattering of the rampant rudeness that was paraded across the U.S.

Of course, being like-minded, the liberal media gleefully lapped this all up and spewed it back out far and wide. Again, all of this was probably to President Trump’s advantage. As if we needed to be reminded of the liberal double-standard in the mainstream media, nevertheless, as Erick Erickson noted,

People are idiots. Donald Trump will keeping winning because people are idiots. And no, I am not talking about Trump supporters. I am mostly talking about the press corps.

Let’s review Saturday shall we? 

The press decided to give massive coverage to the Women’s March in Washington with members of the press gleefully reporting every insult against Trump, but patently ignoring that one of the key speakers opposed the collapse of the Berlin Wall because she thought the communists were better than us. Another speaker, Ashley Judd, suggested Trump supporters were Nazis. 

Consider the reaction of the press had this been said of Barack Obama. Well, we do not have to ponder it. We know. The press was outraged. Remember how a congressional staffer got fired for tweeting something about the Obama kids? On Friday, multiple people with blue checkmarks on Twitter were attacking Baron Trump and the press said nothing. We also know how the press responded when anyone called Obama a muslim, Nazi, commie, etc. 

All this reinforces in many people’s minds that there is a double standard. And that double standard went into full force on Saturday. Supposedly objective reporters spent the day as activists and you all know it.

Along with the expected Nazi and Hitler references, the most common theme of the protestors centered around sex organs and sexual acts. Probably the most-used verb on any poster was, as Ralphie Parker put it, “the queen mother of all dirty words:” the “f-dash-dash-dash.” Taking her queue from the posters (as if she needed any encouragement), pop-harlot Madonna left the live-broadcasting media to apologize for her f-themed tirade. And along with foolishly declaring that she had “thought about blowing up the White House,” Madonna also sang some of her nastiness and changed the lyrics of one song to include “Donald Trump suck a d*ck.”

No doubt the most used noun on any poster was some vulgar reference to a vagina. In fact, whether in print or of a more knit variety, there were more references to female genitalia at this women’s march than in all of the dirty gas station men’s rooms across the U.S. Yet, we are told that Donald Trump is the vulgar one. Again, no one should be surprised that tens of thousands of angry protestors devoted to a liberal worldview would resort to hyper-sexual behavior in order to make their point. For liberals, sex so often is the point.

Whether screaming about Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, the Supreme Court, bathroom privileges, redefining marriage, redefining gender, and so on, the left—especially the feminist left—is consumed with sex. Most of this energy is concentrated on keeping the “right” to kill children in the womb. Tellingly, pro-life women were excluded from the march. When it initially looked like pro-life groups were going to be allowed to participate, the radical pro-abortionists went ballistic. Declaring that the killing of children in the womb is “central” to feminism, Jessica Valenti was “horrified” that pro-life women were going to be allowed to march with what she must deem as “real feminists.”

March organizers soon apologized for including those willing to stand for the most innocent and defenseless females (and males) among us. The photo below reveals the tragic level of devotion to abortion that exists among the modern left:

Having placed such hope in politics and government explains well why liberals crave political power and why they will do most anything—including donning a “p*ssy hat,” conducting a “p*ssy riot,” and longing for the death of the unborn baby Jesus—to obtain such power. After all, as the Obama years well demonstrated, perverse liberal “values” are best imposed—whether by the threat of jail, fines, or even at the end of a gun—by Big Brother.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, 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

BREAKING: U.S. Military Now to Allow Service of Big Red Birds with Fuzzy Pink Feet

I suppose there's only one thing now to decide: is liberalism, as Michael Savage told us a decade ago, a mental disorder, or as Tom Trinko at American Thinker recently concluded, evil to the core?

Seemingly never tired of "struggling against reality," the Obama administration Pentagon has decided to allow "transgenders" to openly serve in the U.S. military. At a press conference today, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said,

I'm announcing today that we're ending the ban on transgender Americans in the United States military. Effective immediately, transgender Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from the military just for being transgender.

Poor Max Klinger would've been devastated, as would have the television executives at CBS. For the first seven seasons of the legendary TV show M*A*S*H*, CBS garnered millions of laughs from Americans who watched Corporal Max Klinger dress up as a woman in a silly attempt to garner a "Section 8" and a discharge from the U.S. Army. Leave it to the Obama administration to undermine one of the greatest television shows of all time.

Oh well, at least M*A*S*H* provides us with an opportunity. In its desire to accommodate all things perverse, and in order to make transgenders feel more comfortable, I'm sure the Obama administration would not object to new military dress for soldiers who wish to carry on in the Max Klinger tradition. Thus, using Klinger as inspiration, I've come up with new uniforms for the U.S. Army. (The other branches of the military can do their own Google search.)

For a combat uniform, here are three options:

The purse accessory in the middle option could be used to carry extra ammunition, supplies, and so on. The large cover in the uniform on the right might prove more useful in desert combat situations.

For formal affairs, there is Army Service Uniform. Fortunately, Klinger was not shy about sporting dressier outfits.

Note all ensembles come with a cover, with the center and the right option also coming with a jacket. The umbrella in the first outfit also doubles as a weapon to use against those not properly progressive enough when it comes to the practice of men dressing as women, and vice versa.

Of course, we need even our trans-troops to remain in top physical condition. (They have to be able to run in heels, right?) Thus, we must provide them with a physical training uniform.

Note the flexibility allowed by the first uniform. The catcher's mitt is not standard issue. The middle option is for those soldiers who wish to perform physical training as a famous female movie character. (I mean, if we're going to allow for fantasy...) Again, Dorothy's picnic basket is non-issue. Option three has the advantage of doubling as a tent.

Klinger was so diversified in his attempts to get out of the Army that he provides us with literally hundreds of additional options should the need arise. There's his maternity line:

Though, as Colonel Blake did point out in this episode, in his condition, Klinger should not be smoking. However, I'm sure the Obama-led Army will soon allow (at taxpayer expense of course) Planned Parenthood personnel on all military bases and outposts in order to remedy such unfortunate incidents.

There's the wedding line:

The patriotic line (for when important dignitaries are on base):

And lastly, the escape line, for when our trans-troops decide it's time to go AWOL:

Once airborne, it's foolproof, as from the ground one will appear as a big red bird, with fuzzy pink feet.

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

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

A Reminder: Fiscal Conservatism Works

A new report by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University again reminds us of the value of good common-sense conservatism when it comes to government spending and taxes. The report “Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition” reveals that states run by conservatives are in much better financial shape than states dominated by liberal politicians.

This handy chart by Investor’s Business Daily reveals the top 10 and bottom 10 according to the report:

This map by the Mercatus Center reveals the rankings of all 50 states and Puerto Rico:

The states are ranked according to five separate metrics:

• Cash solvency. Does a state have enough cash on hand to cover its short-term bills?
• Budget solvency. Can a state cover its fiscal year spending with current revenues, or does it have a budget shortfall?
• Long-run solvency. Can a state meet its long-term spending commitments? Will there be enough money to cushion it from economic shocks or other long-term fiscal risks?
• Service-level solvency. How much “fiscal slack” does a state have to increase spending if citizens demand more services?
• Trust fund solvency. How much debt does a state have? How large are its unfunded pen-sion and healthcare liabilities?

According to the report, the worst states are plagued by two common characteristics: massive debt, and unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities. Of course, it’s this type of accounting that Obama has brought to the White House.

As liberal-led states flirt with bankruptcy, they also continue to wage war on free speech and moral absolutes. As recent headlines reveal, California wants to prosecute those who openly deny liberal dogma on climate change, and Massachusetts wants to legalize gender perversion.

Remember, as I’ve noted before, the states are “laboratories for democracy.” As we’ve seen (and continue to see) with the homosexual agenda (same-sex “marriage,” et al), what liberals are attempting at the state level they will bring to the federal level. That’s something worth remembering come November.

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

Katie Couric Reminds Us: NEVER Trust the Liberal Media

In case you didn't already know: Liberals like Katie Couric don't like guns or gun owners. (I wonder if she likes the history of guns?) Several media outlets (see: here, here, and here) are reporting on how Couric and certain members of her staff at Yahoo News deceptively edited their "Under the Gun" video. The editing attempts to make pro-gun Americans looked foolishly stumped over a simple question about background checks, felons, and terrorists.

I keep having to say this about liberals in politics and the media, but I'll say it again: NO ONE should be surprised by this. When one operates outside the bounds of moral absolutes, virtually any action that furthers a liberal's worldview is fair game. However, the gun-owners of the Virginia Citizens Defense League were smart and offer us a great lesson.

In ANY situation involving the liberal media, protect yourself. Record your sessions (as did the members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League) and have witnesses to any exchanges. If any deception is attempted, hit back with the truth quickly, forcefully, and as voluminously as possible.

Trevor Thomas
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

North Georgia Abortion Zealots and Their Cookies

A few years ago I participated in a forum at Gainesville College (now the University of North Georgia) entitled "What Role Should Religion Play in Government?" It was hosted by the humanist club, or atheist club, or some such group who want Christians to no longer have a role in American government, and for that matter, the culture in general. Because central to the teaching of Christianity is that human beings must surrender the throne of our lives to the One who paid the debt that we all owe, and that none of us can pay.

Of course, surrendering control of our lives to one greater than ourselves seems madness to those who are determined to have their own way in this world. Few things today reveal this more than the willingness of many to kill the most helpless and defenseless among us: a child in the womb. In order to promote such wickedness, the atheists at the University of North Georgia have resorted to unusual means.

According to information published by Matt Walsh, said atheists fashioned cookies in the form of tiny babies, and celebrated their slaughter of the unborn by "eating the baby cookies or breaking the heads off and laughing." And take note of the messages these abortion apologists penned to further their sick and sad agenda:

The one on the right is a common refrain by those so devoted to themselves, but I have to admit, the one on the left is a new one on me. Liberal "crybullies" across the U.S. have expressed fear, alarm, and outrage at political messages scrawled in sidewalk chalk. They demand "safe spaces" so they don't have to listen to anyone who might challenge their ignorant and selfish worldview. Yet, somehow it's okay to mimic the death of children in order further the perverse liberal sexual agenda.

As I've noted often before (borrowing from John MacArthur), within the moral realm in our culture, the battle is almost exclusively about sex. I urge every Christian to get engaged. Challenge your church--your pastor, your Sunday school, your small group, and so on--to get engaged in this epic spiritual battle. Boldly spread the truth with your words and with your actions. Parents teach your children the truth on marriage and sexuality. And if your church refuses to stand for the truth in these grave matters, you need to find a new church.

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

The Liberal Media Slanders Manny Pacquiao

Boxing legend and Filipino politician Manny Pacquiao, a devout Christian, recently has found himself on the wrong side of a unanimous decision of a different sort. Last week, Pacquiao, already elected twice to the Philippines National Assembly and now a candidate for the Filipino Senate, was questioned by a Manila Channel 5 reporter on the issue of same-sex "marriage."

When asked, Pacquiao responded, "It’s common sense. Will you see any animals where male is to male and female is to female? The animals are better. They know how to distinguish male from female. If we approve male on male, female on female then man is worse than animals."

Shortly later, Nike announced that it was cutting endorsement ties with Pacquiao. Of course, the rabidly liberal mainstream media took the opportunity to paint Pacquiao as an ignorant, hateful, (and again making use of the dumbest word in the English language) "homophobe." In doing so, in almost every instance, the liberal mainstream media deceitfully reported on (lied about) what Pacquiao actually said.

Demonstrating an amazing ignorance of human biology, in the largest paper in my home state of Georgia, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, reporter Michael Cunningham wrote, "Nike ended its endorsement deal with the Filipino boxer following his vile, bigoted comments about gay people. In an interview posted online, Pacquiao said gay people are 'worse than animals' and displayed unsurprising ignorance about animal biology."

At the beginning of its piece on the matter, USA Today said, "Nike announced it has dropped Manny Pacquiao in the wake of the boxer’s controversial remarks where he said those in gay relationships 'are worse than animals.'" The New York Times began, "Nike has terminated its relationship with Manny Pacquiao, the champion boxer who is campaigning for the Senate in the Philippines, one day after he publicly apologized for calling people in gay relationships 'worse than animals' during an interview with a local broadcaster."

According to The Times, Nike said, "We find Manny Pacquiao’s comments abhorrent. Nike strongly opposes discrimination of any kind and has a long history of supporting and standing up for the rights of the LGBT community."

Life Site News gets the matter correct as it points out, what Pacquiao was actually saying "is that 'man' –society in general—'is worse than animals,' 'if we approve' same sex 'marriage.'" What's more, as I have pointed out before, Pacquiao's views are very much in line with those of Thomas Jefferson, Sir William Blackstone, and almost every other human being most responsible for the founding of this great nation.

As my column nearly two years ago notes,

Under British law, sodomy was a capital crime. Sir William Blackstone was a renowned and favorite English jurist of our Founders, and his Commentaries on the Laws of England served as the basis of legal jurisprudence in America. 

As David Barton remarks, “In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), [Blackstone] found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it.” Nevertheless, Blackstone declared: 

“What has been here observed…the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished….I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]…A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: …(where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 

“THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept.” 

Following the same moral precepts, each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Thomas Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. (You think modern courts will look to this for guidance?) 

New York’s law read, “That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead.” 

Connecticut’s law read, “That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death.” Georgia’s law (surprisingly—at least for today’s liberals) did not call for the death penalty, but stated, “Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime.”

Minus the punishment of death, until just the last couple of decades, this view on homosexuality was predominant, not only across the U.S., but the world over. But of course, history, nor human law determines truth. The truth on homosexuality, sexuality in general, marriage, and the like is revealed by the Law Giver. Any human laws or opinions contrary to Him and His Word is what should be found "abhorrent."

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