Liberals Take to the Trenches in the War on Science

Time and again, the American left – led by the mainstream media, the Hollywood elite, and the Democratic Party – lectures us about the ignorance of conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who isn't devoted to a "progressive" (amazing how regressive is "progressivism") worldview.  With their talk shows, columns, commercials, movies, sitcoms, roundtables, protests, Facebook posts, tweets, and the like, liberals unashamedly, repeatedly, and without hesitation (and often without much thought) denigrate those with whom they disagree.  Yet time and again, as they preach their philosophy and live out their "faith," it is liberals who are stubbornly hindered by the facts of science and morality.

Examples abound, but a recent case in point is President Obama's final address to the U.S. military.  After attempting to disguise his foreign policy failures with the accomplishments of our "remarkable Special Forces," and rightfully touting the love, patriotism, and sacrifice of our Gold Star families, Obama declared (emphasis mine):

Our Navy is the largest and most lethal in the world, on track to surpass 300 ships. Our Air Force, with its precision and reach, is unmatched. Our Marine Corps is the world's only truly expeditionary force. Our Coast Guard is the finest in the world. And we're also the best because this military has come to welcome the talents of more of our fellow Americans. Service members can now serve the country they love without hiding who they are[.] ... And Joe Biden and I know that women are at least as strong as men. We're stronger for it. It's one of the reasons that our military stands apart as the most respected institution in our nation by a mile.

Tragically, President Obama has often used the U.S. military as a tool to practice and promote his liberal dogma on sex and sexuality.  I try to avoid using "stupid" when it comes to my criticism of liberals and liberalism, but the first sentence highlighted above leaves me no choice.  There's no other way to describe the statement – especially when discussing our military – that "women are at least as strong as men."

I suppose one could argue Obama meant it in a non-physical, "fighting spirit" sort of sense, but that does not fly with his recent efforts and the efforts of his administration when it comes to the role of women in the military.  In January of 2013, after Obama's Joint Chiefs of Staff gave him the unanimous decision that he almost certainly expected when it comes to American women and U.S. military combat operations, the long held Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations.

In December of 2015, in what The New York Times hailed as "a historic transformation of the American military," Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women.  Carter proudly and foolishly announced:

There will be no exceptions. They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.

As Iraq veteran, Harvard Law School graduate, and Bronze Star winner David French noted a few months prior to Secretary Carter's announcement, such thinking is intellectually corrupt and "idiotic."  As I noted last year, comparing male and female athletes, "in spite of the efforts of liberals, there will never be 'gender equality' when it comes to [men and women], because human genders are not – and will never be – equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women[.] ... What's more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who's observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women."

As Psychology Today points out:

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.

What's more, "[t]he average man is stronger than 99.9% of women (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009).  Men also have about 65% greater lower body strength (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009Mayhew and Salm, 1990), over 45% higher vertical leap, and over 22% faster sprint times (Mayhew & Salm, 1990)."  And as Mike Fredenburg points out,

Men's blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does women's[.] ... Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser[.] ... When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are "more likely than women to take action." Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently. For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, "study after study" conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women.

Of course, none of this information is new, and did anyone at the highest levels of our government and military really need rigorous academic research to understand such?  But this is what happens when liberalism corrupts.

The Boy Scouts of America has been similarly corrupted, and the ignorance is just as stunning.  Three and a half years ago, in June of 2013, when the Boy Scouts decided to allow young homosexuals into their ranks, I warned:

[H]ow long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl – who has decided that she wants to be a boy – in the name of "tolerance" to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won't last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.

Two years later, in May of 2015, it was the Girl Scouts of America who were the first to capitulate to the transgender wing of the LGBT agenda.  However, the Boy Scouts (Cub Scouts) are now in the national news because they have kicked a New Jersey girl out of a Cub Scout troop because – of course – she's not a boy.

Only a mind corrupted by liberalism could promote the notion that a human being can simply choose his gender.  Do I really need to present data here on what makes one a male or a female?  Since at least the 1970s, when, among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section "Boys' Toys" and "Girls' Toys," liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls – aside from the obvious biological ones – are the result of "patriarchal cultural biases."

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to "dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine."  And as the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital recently noted, transgenderism is "a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention."  Dr. Paul McHugh notes that not treating transgender disorder properly "can lead to grim psychological outcomes."

Blind to the notion that some things are settled for all time, once liberals began to insist that we debate what marriage is, we should not have been surprised that they would want to debate what is a male and what is a female – or any other long held, long settled matter that conflicts with modern liberal orthodoxy in the sexual realm.

Few things in the modern era motivate liberals to ignore sound science and morality more than their desire to do whatever they wish sexually.  Nothing illustrates this better than the debate that surrounds the homosexual agenda.  In addition to the clear teaching of virtually every Western religion on homosexuality, science has long revealed the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle.  Yet liberals persist – passionately and angrily – in denying these truths when challenged in any way in this matter.

Gospel-singing legend Kim Burrell is the latest victim on this front in the left's war on the truth.  After the gospel singer dared to preach the Gospel on homosexuality, liberal McCarthyists went on the attack.  A scheduled appearance by Burrell on the TV show Ellen was canceled.  Texas Southern University canceled Burrell's radio show on its station, KTSU.  And of course, the liberal media was quick to label Burrell a "bigot."

All of this, and I've made no mention of the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the climate debate or the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the abortion debate.  In spite of their arrogant self-promotion as champions of science, liberals are behind the greatest lies of our era.

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

Time and again, the American left – led by the mainstream media, the Hollywood elite, and the Democratic Party – lectures us about the ignorance of conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who isn't devoted to a "progressive" (amazing how regressive is "progressivism") worldview.  With their talk shows, columns, commercials, movies, sitcoms, roundtables, protests, Facebook posts, tweets, and the like, liberals unashamedly, repeatedly, and without hesitation (and often without much thought) denigrate those with whom they disagree.  Yet time and again, as they preach their philosophy and live out their "faith," it is liberals who are stubbornly hindered by the facts of science and morality.

Examples abound, but a recent case in point is President Obama's final address to the U.S. military.  After attempting to disguise his foreign policy failures with the accomplishments of our "remarkable Special Forces," and rightfully touting the love, patriotism, and sacrifice of our Gold Star families, Obama declared (emphasis mine):

Our Navy is the largest and most lethal in the world, on track to surpass 300 ships. Our Air Force, with its precision and reach, is unmatched. Our Marine Corps is the world's only truly expeditionary force. Our Coast Guard is the finest in the world. And we're also the best because this military has come to welcome the talents of more of our fellow Americans. Service members can now serve the country they love without hiding who they are[.] ... And Joe Biden and I know that women are at least as strong as men. We're stronger for it. It's one of the reasons that our military stands apart as the most respected institution in our nation by a mile.

Tragically, President Obama has often used the U.S. military as a tool to practice and promote his liberal dogma on sex and sexuality.  I try to avoid using "stupid" when it comes to my criticism of liberals and liberalism, but the first sentence highlighted above leaves me no choice.  There's no other way to describe the statement – especially when discussing our military – that "women are at least as strong as men."

I suppose one could argue Obama meant it in a non-physical, "fighting spirit" sort of sense, but that does not fly with his recent efforts and the efforts of his administration when it comes to the role of women in the military.  In January of 2013, after Obama's Joint Chiefs of Staff gave him the unanimous decision that he almost certainly expected when it comes to American women and U.S. military combat operations, the long held Combat Exclusion Policy was lifted, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations.

In December of 2015, in what The New York Times hailed as "a historic transformation of the American military," Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that the Pentagon would open all combat jobs to women.  Carter proudly and foolishly announced:

There will be no exceptions. They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.

As Iraq veteran, Harvard Law School graduate, and Bronze Star winner David French noted a few months prior to Secretary Carter's announcement, such thinking is intellectually corrupt and "idiotic."  As I noted last year, comparing male and female athletes, "in spite of the efforts of liberals, there will never be 'gender equality' when it comes to [men and women], because human genders are not – and will never be – equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women[.] ... What's more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who's observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women."

As Psychology Today points out:

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.

What's more, "[t]he average man is stronger than 99.9% of women (Lassek & Gaulin, 2009).  Men also have about 65% greater lower body strength (Lassek and Gaulin, 2009Mayhew and Salm, 1990), over 45% higher vertical leap, and over 22% faster sprint times (Mayhew & Salm, 1990)."  And as Mike Fredenburg points out,

Men's blood carries 10 to 12 percent more oxygen per liter than does women's[.] ... Pound for pound, men have thicker skulls, bigger, stronger necks, hearts that are 17 percent larger, and bones that are both bigger and denser[.] ... When confronted with immediate danger, studies suggest men are "more likely than women to take action." Women are far more likely to experience motion sickness and vertigo. In the Navy women go on sick call 60 to 70 percent more frequently. For the kind of violent events and situations found on the battlefield, women are far more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder and experience the symptoms for a longer duration than men. Despite the gender-specific ability to handle the pain of childbirth, "study after study" conclusively shows that men have a much higher overall tolerance for pain than women.

Of course, none of this information is new, and did anyone at the highest levels of our government and military really need rigorous academic research to understand such?  But this is what happens when liberalism corrupts.

The Boy Scouts of America has been similarly corrupted, and the ignorance is just as stunning.  Three and a half years ago, in June of 2013, when the Boy Scouts decided to allow young homosexuals into their ranks, I warned:

[H]ow long will it be before the Boy Scouts are again in court? This time it will be a couple (probably same-sex) who wants their young girl – who has decided that she wants to be a boy – in the name of "tolerance" to be able to join the Boy Scouts. However, the fight won't last 23 years in this case. After all, the next moral compromise will be easier than the previous one.

Two years later, in May of 2015, it was the Girl Scouts of America who were the first to capitulate to the transgender wing of the LGBT agenda.  However, the Boy Scouts (Cub Scouts) are now in the national news because they have kicked a New Jersey girl out of a Cub Scout troop because – of course – she's not a boy.

Only a mind corrupted by liberalism could promote the notion that a human being can simply choose his gender.  Do I really need to present data here on what makes one a male or a female?  Since at least the 1970s, when, among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section "Boys' Toys" and "Girls' Toys," liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls – aside from the obvious biological ones – are the result of "patriarchal cultural biases."

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to "dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine."  And as the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital recently noted, transgenderism is "a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention."  Dr. Paul McHugh notes that not treating transgender disorder properly "can lead to grim psychological outcomes."

Blind to the notion that some things are settled for all time, once liberals began to insist that we debate what marriage is, we should not have been surprised that they would want to debate what is a male and what is a female – or any other long held, long settled matter that conflicts with modern liberal orthodoxy in the sexual realm.

Few things in the modern era motivate liberals to ignore sound science and morality more than their desire to do whatever they wish sexually.  Nothing illustrates this better than the debate that surrounds the homosexual agenda.  In addition to the clear teaching of virtually every Western religion on homosexuality, science has long revealed the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle.  Yet liberals persist – passionately and angrily – in denying these truths when challenged in any way in this matter.

Gospel-singing legend Kim Burrell is the latest victim on this front in the left's war on the truth.  After the gospel singer dared to preach the Gospel on homosexuality, liberal McCarthyists went on the attack.  A scheduled appearance by Burrell on the TV show Ellen was canceled.  Texas Southern University canceled Burrell's radio show on its station, KTSU.  And of course, the liberal media was quick to label Burrell a "bigot."

All of this, and I've made no mention of the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the climate debate or the propaganda, threats, lies, and the like from the left in the abortion debate.  In spite of their arrogant self-promotion as champions of science, liberals are behind the greatest lies of our era.

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

RECENT VIDEOS