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.

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Abortion/Pro-Life Headline Archives (2013)


For the most part, the articles/columns linked below appear in chronological order, beginning with the earliest. 


2013:


Immigration Headline Archives (2008-2013)

For the most part, the articles/columns linked below appear in chronological order, beginning with the earliest. 

2013:

Monday, December 30, 2013

On Social Issues, Neal Boortz is Lost

While substituting for Sean Hannity recently, Neal Boortz went into another of his “libertarian” rants against “social” conservatives. Taking note of the recent flak involving Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, while pleading that the fate of the republic may depend upon republicans retaking the U.S. Senate, Boortz forebodingly predicted that republicans would fail in this task because, “they [republicans] simply cannot resist the urge, the impulse to get into this social conservatism.”

Long known for his disdain of the “social” (I prefer “moral”) issues, like many others, Boortz masquerades as libertarian while in reality being nothing more than a liberal on the moral issues of our time.

Contrary to what self-described libertarians such as Boortz and John Stossel would have us believe, if conservatives simply shut up about issues like abortion and marriage and focus on things like debt and fiscal responsibility, there’s no guarantee when it comes to election time. It is a long-held myth, typically perpetuated by self-described liberals in the mainstream media but also by self-described libertarians, that whenever the moral issues are prominent in elections, conservatives lose. As I have noted before, Jeffrey Bell in his book The Case for Polarized Politics helps dispel this myth.

“Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964,” notes Bell. “The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections.”

Bell concludes, as have many others, that American social conservatism began in response to the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Thus, it is unsurprising that all of the most significant “social” issues in America today are sexual issues. Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, contraception, and the like, are not hot political topics merely because they relate to people’s personal lives. They are hot political topics because they reside deep within the moral realm of our culture.

Whether liberals or libertarians admit it, somebody’s morality is going to govern us. Libertarians would do well to examine America’s history before ranting about the morality of today’s [Christian] conservatives. Like our founders, most conservatives today understand well that religion (especially Christianity) is an indispensible tenet of liberty.

America’s “Schoolmaster” Noah Webster bore this out in his 1832 History of the United States when he wrote that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.” Webster rightly concluded that, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”

Additionally, and again contrary to popular myth and what pundits like Mr. Boortz would have us believe, Christian conservatives aren’t the aggressors in the so-called “culture wars.” It has been liberals with the aid of those like-minded in our courts and our media who have forced their moral views on our culture. Whether it’s abortion, the environment, public displays of religion, marriage, or other issues, liberals have taken the view of what is typically a small minority and imposed their will on the country.

In more ways than one, the results have been disastrous and (speaking of debt) expensive. As an example, consider the environment and the myth of man-made global warming. Starting out with a small minority, through judicial fiat and a relentless media campaign, liberals began preaching that through the use of fossil fuels, human beings were warming the globe and that (of course) drastic political measures needed to be taken to “save the planet.”

Though most Americans do not consider global warming a significant issue for our government, decades of propaganda have taken a toll on our nation. For too long, conservatives didn’t do enough to combat the tactics of liberals on this issue, and today far too many Americans believe the lie that the actions of humans are warming the planet. So much so that, the last republican-elected president, George W. Bush, signed a significant piece of legislation that was premised on the notion of man-made global warming.

After signing the Energy Independence and Security Act, President Bush declared, “Today…We make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding production of renewable fuels and giving future generations a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure.”

According to the New York Times, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed Bush’s sentiments by describing “the bill as groundbreaking because it would reduce oil imports, cut production of the gases that scientists blame for global warming and significantly increase the efficiency of the nation’s auto fleet.”

Boortz would do well to note that this is what happens when conservatives acquiesce to the positions of liberals. We get conservatives at the highest level parroting liberal speak and the government spending billions of dollars on a problem that doesn’t exist—even telling us what light bulbs we can use. However, this is nothing compared to the slaughter of tens of millions of children in the womb or the legal redefinition of the institution upon which our republic rests.

So-called libertarians like Boortz can moan and groan about the moral positions of “social” conservatives all they want, but it doesn’t change the facts. All law is rooted in some morality; thus somebody’s morality is going to “determine the fate of this republic.” Libertarians need to decide with whom it’s easier to live: those who share the morality of the vast majority of our founders, who gave us the greatest document for self governance ever created by men; or those who seek fundamentally to change this republic into something that conservatives and libertarians both will lament.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Why We're Raising "Duck Dynasty" Boys, and Not "Pajama" Boys

After Phil Robertson told the truth to GQ Magazine (though in a rather colorful way) about homosexuality, liberals went into their predictable hypocritical hyperventilations. While slamming Robertson’s (and essentially the Bible’s) views on homosexuality and sin (which are shared by ten-of-millions of Americans), liberals completely ignored (read: had absolutely no problem with) what were by far the most offensive things in the GQ column.

Authored by Drew Magary, the column is replete with dripping sarcasm along with plenty of vulgar and foul language. In the very first paragraph, referring to Mr. Robertson’s large crossbow, Magary says “It looks like you could shoot through a god—mn mountain with it.”  Of course, if one doesn’t believe what the Bible says anyway, what harm is there in swearing with God’s name?

Just two sentences later, Magary writes, “The bow is cocked and loaded, just in case a deer stumbles in front of us and we need to do a redneck drive-by on the poor b-stard…” The f-bomb is dropped more than once, along with several other foul words and crude references. Seemingly, none of this bothers the left. No, they are offended by Scripture quotations that contradict their liberal worldview.

As Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller points out, such a worldview much prefers “Pajama Boy” to the boys of Duck Dynasty. As Lewis noted in his column, “There is a huge schism between red state America and blue state America, and these two stories seem to symbolize the yawning chasm.” However wide this chasm, as a father of four, three of whom are boys (ages 5, 9, and 11), one thing is clear to me: I’m raising “Duck Dynasty” boys, not “Pajama” boys.

Now, my boys love their cozy pajamas and hot chocolate, but they are also learning to shoot (guns and bows), hunt, and fish. Last Christmas I gave my two older boys junior compound bows. This year they have fished for and caught crappie and trout. My two older boys also won a “Turkey Shoot” with BB guns—the prize being a frozen turkey—at a local fall festival this year. Below is a recent photo of our boys with our only daughter Caroline, which my wife proudly posted on Facebook along with the caption shown.


"You may come calling boys, but you must meet my brothers first."

Don’t worry, libs, along with our children’s outdoor exploits, our home has an extensive library of hundreds of books. My wife, who is in charge of homeschooling our four children, has made sure of that. Each of our three older children, including our daughter, also takes karate and piano classes. So along with learning how to clean a trout, this year Caleb, Jesse, and Caroline learned to play a “Mozart Themed” Sleigh-ride.

I have an undergraduate degree in physics and two graduate degrees in mathematics education. I have taught mathematics in public and private schools for 20 years. My wife has an undergraduate degree in sociology, graduated summa cum laude, and was valedictorian of her college class. She has also recently authored a book. Our children will receive one of the best K-12 educations of any child in the country.

I’m not nearly the outdoorsman that the Robertsons are, and my wife can’t stand camouflage, but whether my children prefer sipping hot chocolate (like Uncle Si, I prefer sweet tea) or shooting a gun, most importantly, our children are being taught from a Christian worldview.

Yes, that means that among other things, they are learning that, along with adultery, fornication, and bestiality, homosexual behavior is sin. They are also learning that they are created in the image and likeness of God, and that all human life, from the moment of conception, is especially precious. And they are learning that in the world today, both abortion and homosexuality are uniquely heinous.

Why the focus on these two particular issues? Because the greatest lie ever told is that there is no God. The second greatest lie ever told is that the devil does not exist. The third greatest lie ever told is that your sin (and mine) is not really sin, and this is exactly what is happening with homosexuality and abortion.

For decades in the U.S. there has been a movement spearheaded by many well-funded organizations devoted to preaching the value and legitimacy of abortion, homosexuality, and a redefining of marriage. In other words, tens of millions of Americans have been preached the lie that homosexual behavior and killing a child in the womb are not sin. My children are learning the truth in these grave matters.

As Joel Belz of World Magazine noted several years ago, it is time for conservative Christians to “stop apologizing” for the attention we give the issues of homosexuality and abortion. Like Phil Robertson, it is time for more Christian celebrities to take on these issues. Time and again we see homosexuality portrayed in music, movies, and television as nothing but normal, acceptable behavior.

There is virtually NOTHING in the secular media that portrays the other side of homosexuality and similar issues. Such absence impacts our culture. There is no doubt that public opinion on homosexuality and same-sex marriage has been swayed toward a more liberal view of these matters in no small part due to the media campaign that favors them.

If we stay silent, what happens? Television networks will pull the Phil Robertsons (and the Craig Jameses) from the air. Of course, supposedly networks such as Fox and A&E have the “right” to make such decisions, but photographers, bakers, and florists with Christian views on homosexuality and marriage don’t. Such small businesses are sued and even held liable by our courts for refusing services to same-sex couples.

Even worse, once the homosexual agenda (which, we must not forget includes those who are “transgendered”) has the full force of the law behind it, public schools will teach that homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are good and right. In school systems like Los Angeles, it’s already happening. Likewise, schools (certainly public, probably private as well) will be forced to accommodate “transgendered” children.

What’s more, state constitutions that have amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman are proving to be not enough to stop the homosexual agenda from progressing on the marriage front. Just days ago, a federal judge ruled Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Like almost all of the 28 other states with similar bans, in 2004 the citizens of Utah passed the ban by an overwhelming 66% to 34% majority.

If America wants to stop this madness where good is called evil and evil is called good, we must change our culture. This fight begins with our families. Liberals know this. This is why almost exclusively the “culture wars” being fought in the U.S. are an attack on the family. In other words, if we want to change our culture, we better start raising our kids with a worldview like that of the cast of Duck Dynasty instead of the worldview that govern “Pajama Boy” and his big sister, Julia.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Polygamy and the Left

With the ruling of a federal judge last week that declared part of Utah’s anti-polygamy law unconstitutional, the left finds itself torn. Of course, with their ever-wavering consciences that are willing to go along with whatever seems the latest fad that tests our moral bounds (especially in the sexual realm), some liberals say that it is time that we take a closer look at plural marriage. After all, if consenting adults want to enter into such relationships, what is the problem? In other words, as I asked over five years ago, what’s wrong with polygamy?

However, some liberals took comfort in the fact that the federal judge’s ruling in the Utah case was somewhat limited in its scope. So don’t worry, declares Jay Bookman of the AJC, (in spite of where the redefining of marriage will eventually lead us) judge Waddoups' ruling “does not in any way require government to recognize a polygamous marriage.”

Haven’t we heard something like this before? No need to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman; the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is sufficient. For over a decade (and marriage has only been an electoral issue for little more than a decade), the vast majority of elected U.S. democrats were for biblical marriage, until they were against it. In 1996 DOMA passed by a 342 to 67 margin in the U.S. House, and an 85 to 14 margin in the Senate, and was signed by President Clinton.

After DOMA, until 2003, only three U.S. states (AK, NE, NV) saw fit to amend their constitutions to limit the legal definition of marriage to a union of one man and one woman. And just as they now have with polygamy, the liberal courts struck. In Lawrence vs. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 ruling (reversing itself from the 1986 Bowers vs. Georgia) overturned the Texas anti-sodomy law and thus invalidated similar laws in the 12 states that still had them on their books.

Of course, as liberals now point out with polygamy, the Lawrence ruling in no way granted gays the legal right to marry, but it did give legal (and inevitably cultural) legitimization to homosexual activity. Then the liberal courts struck again, as they almost certainly will do (if they follow their own liberal logic) in the case of polygamy. Later in 2003, the state Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of same-sex marriage.

These two events set in motion of a torrent of activity among U.S. states to amend their constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Conservatives and liberals alike rushed to declare their support for biblical marriage. In other words, in the late 1990s and early 2000s same-sex marriage did not poll well.

As Carl Cannon of Real Clear Politics (and a supporter of same-sex marriage) put it, “Although ‘marry the person they love’ is a talking point, it’s also a noble sentiment. But ‘fight like hell’ is not what Barack Obama or his political party did on this issue. Quite the contrary: ‘Headed for the hills’ is a more apt description.”

According to Cannon, as late as 2004, Bill Clinton himself (who earlier this year “bravely” announced that “It’s time to overturn DOMA”) privately urged then presidential candidate John Kerry to “outflank George W. Bush from the right on gay marriage.” Once the polling changed, liberals in the democrat party were very willing to “evolve” on the issue of same-sex marriage. In his Op-Ed in March of this year, President Clinton stated that DOMA was “discriminatory” and “should be overturned.”

Those who support polygamy are simply following the same play book used by the homosexual agenda to obtain full legal recognition of same-sex marriage. First, get legal recognition of the behavior. Then use the rulings of the courts along with allies in the media to sway public opinion. Finally, use the courts again to further erode whatever elements of Christian morality that remain in the U.S. legal code.

But currently, the left does face a quandary: on the one hand, their ever-evolving morality says that there really can’t be anything wrong with polygamy, but on the other hand, the line for marriage must be drawn somewhere. Thus, since liberals really don’t want to defend the inevitable myriad of consequences of a legal redefinition of marriage, and since polygamy doesn’t yet poll well among Americans, and democrats don’t yet want the political burden of supporting polygamy, right now at least, liberals are willing to “discriminate” when it comes to marriage.

Yes, whether they would admit it (and they almost never do), liberals do take moral stands and they do discriminate. All of us do. Yet, liberals (and even some confused conservatives) would have us believe that it’s wrong to “legislate morality.” CNN’s Mark Goldfeder ignorantly concludes that in the light of the Lawrence ruling, morals based legislation is “unconstitutional.”

In his dissent of Lawrence vs. Texas, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of…laws based on moral choices.” Scalia later concluded that the Court had effectively decreed “the end of all morals legislation.”

Maybe the “Court” has so decreed, but not the Constitution. And of course, by “morals” what Scalia and Goldfeder are both referring to are Christian morals. As I have often noted, all law is rooted in some morality. It is illogical, ignorant, and hypocritical for liberals to rail against laws that are rooted in Christian morality, all the while preaching a morality of their own making. Americans simply need to decide by whose morality we want to be governed.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World