New Book

A Unique and Revealing Look at America!---The Miracle and Magnificence of America. If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing my recent book (as low as $9.99). Click here to get it at Amazon. See here for more information.

Book Banner

Book Facebook

HELP US GET THE WORD OUT: If you "Like" this page, please visit our new Facebook page for The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Harvey Weinstein Proves Why the Left Really Hates Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, October 9, 2017

Christopher Columbus Deserves His Holiday (an excerpt from The Miracle and Magnificence of America)

In my research for The Miracle and Magnificence of America, I spent a good deal of time looking at the life and exploits of Christopher Columbus. In spite of what you might hear from many modern pseudo-historians and ignorant Antifa fools, Columbus is a man worthy of his recognition.

One of the most skilled mariners of his day, Christopher Columbus not only knew that the earth was a sphere, but was also extremely capable in all of the known science required to navigate an ocean. In addition, Columbus was a devoted Christian who was known to be a man of prayer and a serious student of God’s Word.

Born in late 1451 to Domenico Colombo, a poor to middle-class wool weaver, and Susanna Fontanarossa, at a young age Cristoforo (Italian for “Christ-bearer”) Colombo showed intelligence, drive, and a distinct impression of God at work in his life.

As Columbus would explain later in his life:
I have had commerce and conversation with knowledgeable people of the clergy and the laity, Latins and Greeks, Jews and Moors, and with many others of different religions. Our Lord has favored my occupation and has given me an intelligent mind. He has endowed me with a great talent for seamanship; sufficient ability in astrology, geometry, and arithmetic; and the mental and physical dexterity required to draw spherical maps . . . with everything in its proper place. 
During this time I have studied all kinds of texts: cosmography, histories, chronicles, philosophy, and other disciplines. Through these writings, the hand of Our Lord opened my mind to the possibility of sailing to the Indies and gave me the will to attempt the voyage. . . . Who could doubt that this flash of understanding was the work of the Holy Spirit . . . ?
With access to the personal papers of Columbus, noted sixteenth century missionary, theologian, historian, and Dominican friar Bishop Bartolomé de Las Casas was able to describe in great detail the “Divine Providence” present in Columbus’s life. In order to achieve “one of the mightiest and divine exploits” in the history of the world, Las Casas noted that when the time had come, the “divine and supreme Master” entrusted the “illustrious and great” Christopher Columbus with “virtue, mind, zeal, labours, knowledge, and wisdom.”

Las Casas also revealed the significance of Columbus’s name:
He was therefore named Cristóbal, i.e. Christum ferens, which means bringer or bearer of Christ, and so he often signed his name; for in truth he was the first to open the gates of this Ocean sea by which he brought out Saviour, Jesus Christ, to these remote lands and realms, until then unknown…His surname was Colón, which means repopulator, a name befitting one thanks to whose labour so many souls, through the preaching of the Gospel.
With prophetic accuracy, Las Casas wrote of the “Christian and happy republic” that Columbus aimed to bring to the previously unknown “remote lands and realms.” In his History of the Indies, Las Casas described Columbus as,
a gentle man of great force and spirit, of lofty thoughts and naturally inclined to undertake worthy deeds and signal enterprises; patient and longsuffering, a forgiver of injustices who wished no more than that those who offended him should recognize their errors, and that the delinquents be reconciled to him.
Most importantly, Las Casas also described the faith of the “Christ-bearer:”
In matters of Christian religion no doubt he was a Catholic and of great devotion; …He fasted with the utmost strictness when ordained by the Church; he confessed often and took Communion; he prayed at all canonical hours as do Churchmen and friars; most averse to blasphemies and oaths…he seemed to be very grateful to God for the benefits received at the Divine Hand, and so it was almost a proverb with him, which he quoted every hour, that God had shown him great favour, as to David…He was a most jealous keeper of the honour of God; eager to convert the peoples and to see the seed and faith of Jesus Christ spread everywhere…
Contrary to what many modern historians reveal, Columbus was not heading out across the vast Atlantic Ocean merely searching for gold and spices. Though there was a desire for gold, as Las Casas reveals, among other things, Columbus had a desire to fund a crusade to rid the Holy Land of its Muslim invaders. On December 26, 1492, in his personal journal, Columbus recalled that he urged King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, the Spanish sovereigns, “to spend all the profits of this my enterprise on the conquest of Jerusalem.”

Because of events such as the Great Plague, during the fifteenth century there was widespread belief that the end of time was near. Many Christians of this time also believed that before Christ would return, Jerusalem had to be in the hands of Christians. As the result of his study of Scripture, along with his study of the works of first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and noted theologian and philosopher Saint Augustine, Columbus believed the same. Thus Columbus literally saw himself as an agent of the apocalypse. Also, as the result of reading of the travels of Marco Polo—where it was revealed that the Chinese monarchs expressed an interest in Christianity—and because he believed that sailing west he would land in Asia, Columbus wanted to convert the Chinese.

When it came to his quest for the “New World,” Columbus’s faith was instrumental in most everything that he did—from his initial efforts to obtain funding from European monarchs to his later expeditions into the Americas. Not everything he did was Christ-like, but as Columbus notes in his own journal,
It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies…There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures…
It is not known exactly when Columbus first conceived his plan to cross the Atlantic. It is known that by 1484 Columbus was in the exclusive business of mapmaking with his brother Bartolomeo. This experience, combined with his significant time at sea, made him as knowledgeable of the Atlantic as nearly anyone in the world. By 1484 Columbus began seeking funding for his ambitious expedition.

For eight years Columbus traveled throughout Europe seeking a sponsor. The waiting was trying for Columbus. He almost certainly began to doubt any holy calling upon his life and his quest. He sought direction and comfort from Father Juan Perez, the Prior of the monastery where Columbus had left his son Diego several years earlier when he had no means to care for him (a common practice during this time).

Perez was close to Queen Isabella, as he had at an earlier time been her confessor. He convinced Columbus to approach the queen again with his plans and obtained the explorer an audience with her. Perez also wrote a letter to her highness telling her that he was convinced that God’s hand was upon Columbus. Moreover, by late 1491 the Spanish war against the Moors was about to end, with Spain being victorious. The Spaniards were jubilant, and the king and queen were in the mood for adventure, especially one that would advance the kingdom of God.

On August 3, 1492, with three ships—the Niña, Pinta, and Santa María—Columbus and his crew set out on their journey for the New World. Heading out into the vast Atlantic Ocean without a really good idea of how long it will be before you reach land requires not only faith, but great boldness. Of course, as time passes on, boldness can turn into frustration, and frustration can breed fear and anger. With hope waning and mutiny brewing, two months after departing Spain, Columbus told the Pinzón brothers (owners of the Pinta and the Niña) that if land were not sighted in three days, they would turn about and head home.

On October 12, 1492, with less than four hours remaining on the deadline, a cry of “Tierra! Tierra!” (“Land! Land!”) rang out from the Pinta. Columbus was the first to set foot on dry land, followed by the Pinzón brothers carrying a huge white banner adorned with a large green cross and the crowned initials of Ferdinand and Isabella on either side of it. Columbus christened the island San Salvador, which meant “Holy Savior.”

Columbus and his crew later erected a large wooden cross, as they did on every island at which they stopped, to be, in his words, “a token of Jesus Christ our Lord, and in honor of the Christian faith.” Sadly, Columbus often failed miserably to live out his Christian faith. As Peter Marshall and David Manuel note, Columbus succumbed to “the three things the world prizes most: money…position…and power.”

Yet, in his journal Columbus noted his reasons for seeking “undiscovered worlds:” to “bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathens” and to “bring the Word of God to unknown coastlands.” In these efforts, Columbus was eager to note the presence and power of God. In March of 1493, upon returning to Europe after his initial voyage to the Americas, Columbus wrote,
Of this voyage, I observe…that it has miraculously been shown, as may be understood by this writing, by the many signal miracles that He has shown on the voyage, and for me, who for so great a time was in the court of Your Highnesses with the opposition and against the opinion of so many high personages of your household, who were all against me, alleging this undertaking to be folly, which I hope in Our Lord will be to the greater glory of Christianity, which to some extent already has happened.
In spite of all of his shortcomings, at his core, Columbus was a man of faith. Time and again he would prove himself devoted to the Great Commission of his Lord and Savior—to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ to all the nations of the earth. In spite of frequent failures and repeated rejections, the faith, devotion, and hard work of one man would change the destiny of the world. The efforts of Columbus would lay the groundwork for even more miraculous events that would culminate in the most magnificent nation the world has ever known.

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

Friday, October 6, 2017

Hugh Hefner’s Real Legacy: Disease, Despair, and Death

A timely and stunning statistic befitting the recent death of America’s patriarch of pornography: a shocking 110 million Americans—over one-third of our population—are saddled with a sexually transmitted disease. According to The New York Times,
The incidence of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis is increasing, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. An estimated 110 million Americans now are infected with a sexually transmitted disease
Chlamydia is the most common S.T.D., and the number of cases rose 4.7 percent from 2015 to 2016… Adolescents and young adult women have the highest rates of chlamydia: one survey found that 9.2 percent of girls aged 15 to 19 were infected… The rate of primary and secondary syphilis in 2016 is the highest it has been since 1993, and it increased among both men and women from 2015 to 2016. Men account for almost 90 percent of cases, and most are among men who have sex with men. 
Rates of syphilis increased in every age group and all races, and they were highest among people in their twenties.
Additionally, more than one out of every six people aged 14 to 49 has genital herpes. (Thus the rise of all of the Valtrex commercials on TV.) Among many other tragic outcomes, the rampant rate of STDs in America is the real legacy of notorious sexual provocateur, Hugh Hefner. Thanks to the desire to make our own rules when it comes to sex, following the lead of Hefner and his like-minded moral deviants, we find ourselves with STD rates in the U.S. at an all-time high. According to the CDC, there are more than 20 million new cases of STDs in the United States every year. As CNN recently reported,
“STDs are out of control with enormous health implications for Americans,” said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors. The coalition represents state, local and territorial health departments who focus on preventing STDs. 
“If not treated, gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis can have serious consequences, such as infertility, neurological issues, and an increased risk for HIV,” said Harvey.
Also among the “serious consequences” of many of these STDs: cancer. In addition to cervical cancer, which is caused by certain types of the STD, Human Papilloma Virus, just days ago, the Los Angeles Times reported on (surprise!) the “anal cancer epidemic” that exists among homosexual and bisexual men. The article notes that men who engage in homosexual activity are 100 times more likely to contract anal cancer than HIV-negative men “who exclusively have sex with women.” The article also declares that, “Some in the medical community have identified anal cancer as the next big crisis among HIV-infected gay and bisexual men.” I have breaking news for the medical community: there will always be a “next big crisis” looming for men who treat the human septic canal as a vagina.

Nevertheless, and no-doubt taking their cues from perverts like Hefner, this past July, Teen Vogue—a magazine whose target audience is teenage girls—took it upon themselves to instruct their young readers on the finer points of sodomy. The article, entitled “Anal Sex: What You Need to Know” and subtitled, “How to do it the RIGHT way,” declares itself to be “anal 101, for teens, beginners, and all inquisitive folk.” The garbage piece ends with this shocking admission:

That being said, yes, you will come in contact with some fecal matter. You are entering a butthole. It is where poop comes out. Expecting to do anal play and see zero poop isn’t particularly realistic. It’s NOT a big deal. Everyone poops. Everyone has a butt.

This, from a member of the “party of science.” Forgetting to floss one’s teeth every now and then is “NOT a big deal.” Hillary’s choice of pant suits is “NOT a big deal.” Global climate change is “NOT a big deal.” Choosing to engage in sodomy—even once—can have horrific life-changing—even deadly—consequences. Of course, “anal 101” neglects to mention the rampant disease associated with such disgusting behavior. In other words, like Hefner’s Playboy magazine, Teen Vogue is an accomplice in the shocking rise of STDs among America’s youth.

In a sick attempt to justify promoting evil and dangerous sexual activity, just as they have with killing children in the womb, the left has now stooped to “normalizing” (an STD is “pretty bad*ss; it’s like a sex wound”) and even celebrating (with a “#ShoutYourStatus”) STDs. The perverse gotta pervert, I suppose. As Matt Barber concluded, political correctness needs to be declared an STD.

Of course, one need not contract an STD to suffer as a result of the plague of pornography. A 2015 UK Telegraph article on porn use among British youth contains a shocking revelation from a general practitioner (Sue):
“I’m afraid things are much worse than people suspect.” In recent years, Sue had treated growing numbers of teenage girls with internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex; not, as Sue found out, because she wanted to, or because she enjoyed it – on the contrary – but because a boy expected her to. “I’ll spare you the gruesome details,” said Sue, “but these girls are very young and slight and their bodies are simply not designed for that.”
Yeah, no one’s body is “designed for that.” The boys were “expecting” such from their young girlfriends because they had bought into one of the many lies of porn. Instead of worrying over the condition of their skin or what earrings went with their new outfit, many of the young girls Sue was treating found themselves battling incontinence. Imagine the shame of a youth—because they bought a favorite and common lie of the left (sex without consequences), the muscles of their rectum are stretched out such that they must live in daily fear of soiling themselves.

Furthermore, the porn saturation of America, along with most of the rest of the Western world, has resulted in longtime and widespread devastation that extends far beyond the physical. If you think “saturation” too strong, consider:
People watched 4,392,486,580 hours of porn on PornHub in 2015. Just to put that in perspective, that means that in one year, people around the world spent 501,425 years watching pornography—on one porn site. 
On PornHub, people watched 87,849,731,608 porn videos. As the porn site hastened to point out, that’s 12 porn videos viewed for every single person on the planet.
That, my friends, is the sad math of porn addiction. As a result, tens of millions of teens and adults worldwide have little to no idea what is a healthy sexual relationship, or, in many cases, how to have any type of a healthy relationship with those who share the gender of the objects of their sexual fantasies. Any notion of self-sacrifice and service to another is abandoned, and sex becomes an end unto itself. Regular porn consumers (especially men) literally lust after porn-like encounters in order to be sexually satisfied. In the minds of many men, porn has reduced women to a commodity to be consumed and an object to be abused (e.g., 50 Shades of Grey Dismay).

Breaking the bonds of trust between husbands and wives, porn has destroyed millions of American marriages. Porn use within a marriage leads to a long list of troubling issues. A recent study revealed that once porn enters a marriage, the chances of divorce double. Driven by lust that was born of porn consumption, millions of young adult Americans are shunning marriage in favor of the hook-up culture.

Thus, whether born out of wedlock, killed in the womb, or forced to witness the destruction of the most important human relationship in their lives, over the last six-plus decades, tens of millions of American children have suffered because of their parents’ selfish sexual desires. As I’ve noted before, if these children survive the womb, they face a wide array of difficulties.

Hugh Hefner was prince of the pimps. He was a destroyer of lives and cultures. The level of his destruction is so wide and deep that it will only be fully known in the light of eternity. If you are trapped in his world, turn and flee now. There is hope and healing, and there are those who can help.

(See this article at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, September 25, 2017

Kaepernickitis is Rooted in Lies

The athletes doth protest too ignorantly, methinks. Whether foolish NFL quarterbacks (and their like-minded playmates) or double-minded NBA athletes, the affluent agitators should direct their political and social ire elsewhere. Instead, they’ve joined their Hollywood cohorts as mouthpieces for the Democrat Party. Of course, it should come as little surprise that expensive American entertainers have made themselves tools of the perverse modern left.

Take Colin Kaepernick (“PLEASE,” his agent cries!). His failed efforts at protesting during the National Anthem were predicated upon a lie. After his initial protest in the 2016 preseason, NFL Media reported,
“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”
In other words, Kaepernick has bought the lies of Black Lives Matter, hook, line, and sinker. As I noted last year, the lie is this:
There’s widespread and institutionalized racism inside America’s law enforcement agencies, and black Americans are especially targeted. This racism has led to the deaths of a disproportionate number of innocent black Americans. In order to stop this heinous activity, we need more gun control legislation, more wealth redistribution, more job and education programs, and thus Americans need to elect more Democrats.
As has been refuted ad nauseam—most notably by Heather MacDonald—few things are further from the truth. The tragic truth is, the most dangerous place for a black American is not in the presence of a police officer. The most dangerous place for a black American—especially a young black American—is a black neighborhood. Again, as a 2016 report by the Manhattan Institute reveals:

· In 2013, homicide was the leading cause of death among African-Americans aged 15–35.
· During 1990–2008, for 93 percent of black homicide victims, the perpetrator was also black.
· In 2009, in the 75 largest U.S. counties, blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders, and 45 percent of assaults —despite constituting 15 percent of the population in those counties.
· In 2014, in New York City, blacks committed 75 percent of shootings and 70 percent of robberies, while constituting 23 percent of the population.
· During 2005–2014, blacks were also responsible for 40 percent of murders of police officers nationwide.

And perhaps the most shocking statistic of all: Black men in the U.S. are half as likely to die if they are in prison than if they are not. And why are these black neighborhoods so dangerous? Again, the breakdown of the black family.

It has been widely reported for years now that the out-of-wedlock birth rate among American blacks is over 70 percent. Almost always, mothers are left to raise their children alone. In U.S. cities, where the violence and poverty among U.S. blacks is most pronounced, the out-of-wedlock birth rate is even worse. For example, in Chicago about 80 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Today, only 17 percent of American black teenagers reach age 17 in a family with their biological parents married to each other. In no state in the U.S does black family intactness exceed 30 percent.

Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children living with their married biological parents are the least likely to commit criminal acts. On the other hand, children from single-parent homes (almost always without a father) are
more likely to…engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent. Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.
Far more rampant than any form of racist police discrimination is the plague of fatherlessness in the black community. Yet, when it comes to this grave matter, Colin Kaepernick and his NFL ilk are virtually silent. In fact, with their sexually immoral lifestyles and lack of devoted marriages, many of them are doing nothing but perpetuating the problem. How many abortions and/or out-of-wedlock births are those kneeling on the sidelines responsible for?

The same moral ignorance pervasive in the NFL is present in the NBA (and virtually every other prominent entertainment arena) as well. After an announcement that they would vote on whether to attend the White House invitation to celebrate their NBA championship, the Golden State Warriors’ biggest star, Stephen Curry, in declaring he would vote against the visit said,
We don’t stand for basically what our president…the things that he said and the things that he hasn’t said in the right terms that we won’t stand for it. And by acting and not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country and what is accepted and what we turn a blind eye to.
Ahhh, “tolerance.” Of course, after winning the championship in 2015, Curry and his teammates had no hesitation in visiting the Obama White House. This is particularly revealing because, like Kaepernick, Curry has long been outspoken about his Christian faith. After winning the NBA’s MVP for the 2014-2015 season, Curry said,
First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.
Curry’s shoe deal with Under Armour includes shoes that contain “4:13” and the quote, “I can do all things” which is a direct reference to Philippians 4:13. In spite of his demonstrative Christian faith, Curry seems to have a “blind eye” when it comes to the Democrat Party’s support of killing children in the womb, gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, the legal redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, an enslaving welfare state, and so on. How “tolerant” of him.

In support of Trump’s NBA critics, NBA commissioner Adam Silver said “I am proud of our players for taking an active role in their communities and continuing to speak out on critically important issues.” Do you think Silver would have issued such a statement if, after the infamous Obergefell ruling, NBA players would have blasted the Obama administration for such an egregiously mistaken sea-change in legal policy? Me neither. On the contrary, like the NFL, the NBA is an enthusiastic supporter of the foul LGBT agenda.

One of the greatest lies of the modern era is that consenting adults have the “right” to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm. This has led to many of the above perverse policies backed by the Democrat Party. Other than the NFL’s Ben Watson, I can think of no active professional athlete who stands against the sexual lies of the left (and actually lives it), and who outspokenly stands for the truth on life, marriage, and family.

Whatever a morally minded—especially a so-called Christian—person’s problem with the current President, those problems should pale in comparison to the immorality perpetrated by the modern Democrat Party. Instead of using their high-profile platform to speak against this evil, riddled with liberals, the American entertainment industry is typically an accomplice in this evil, or at best, complicity silent.

If you want to stand against something—especially in the political realm—Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Curry, look to your left.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Why Evangelicals—Like Me—Voted for Donald Trump and Are Sticking With Him

The Never-Trumpers of every stripe still don’t get it. Ten months after his historic defeat of Hillary Clinton, those opposed to Donald Trump—whether from the political right, left, or middle—have yet to grasp why so many Americans—especially evangelical Americans—have embraced, or at least tolerate, the politics of the Man from Manhattan. As my wife (and chief editor) pointed out when I began this piece, “It’s really a no-brainer. There was no other option.” But nevertheless, to those dulled by their disdain for Mr. Trump, let me explain again our continued support for him.

First, let me make this abundantly clear: as passionate as we are about our politics, we understand well that the cure for what ails this nation, and this world, is as far above politics as the north is above the south. Dwight Eisenhower put it well when he declared, “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America.” Thus, when we pull the lever, or tap the screen, for any man or woman, for any political office, our expectations for what they can or can’t accomplish are always tempered by the notion that our real problems are spiritual and require spiritual solutions.

Of course, such thinking stands in stark contrast to those who have put their hope in the things and the people of this world. As I’ve noted before, the left is so devoted to politics and political power because that is the chief means by which they hope to make the world into their idea of “heaven.” Virtually every dictator to rise to power has done so by promising some version of a leftist utopia. The twentieth century is replete with such tragic examples.

Is there any doubt that the biggest reason those on the left are throwing a seemingly never-ending temper tantrum over Donald Trump’s ascent to the White House is because Mr. Trump stands as a “YUUUGE” obstacle to their utopian dreams? In spite of bitter opposition in the U.S. Congress—as much as can be mustered given democrats’ historic losing streak,— the liberal media, and an inability by congressional republicans to unite on a conservative agenda, President Trump is doing much to stymie the perverse left-wing agenda.

This is especially true with the federal courts. As Legal Insurrection noted a few weeks ago, month after month—to the tune of dozens of nominees—President Trump has consistently appointed conservative judges. And as William Jacobson pointed out just prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration, President Trump could end up appointing half of the federal judiciary. Thanks to the “Reid rule,” democrats can do little to stop him. The little democrats can do, they are persistent in, using, as U.S. News reports, “every procedural tactic they can to block [Trump’s] judges.” The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate needs to get busy making sure these conservative nominees actually make it to the bench.

Using jurists who imagine themselves lawmakers—and who reject the Laws of the Law Giver—the courts have long been a favorite tool of the modern left. Thus, it has often not mattered whether U.S. liberals win elections; with the aid of the courts, their evil agenda still gets enacted and enforced. This is why the power of the U.S. President to appoint federal judges is more important now than perhaps ever before in American history. That alone is reason enough to have voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. However, there were plenty of other reasons as well.

Again, in today’s political climate, few things are as certain as this: Virtually every crazy policy, corrupt courtroom ruling, or depraved piece of legislation that plagues our political climate is a product of modern liberalism. Whether killing children in the womb, stifling small businesses, legally redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, legalizing and promoting a wide variety of sexual immoralities, criminalizing (or attempting to criminalize) the life-blood of American industry, criminalizing Christianity, de-criminalizing illegal immigration in order to help maintain a “permanent underclass” of potential voters, stealing money from one group of constituents to buy votes from another, and so on, liberals and their lackeys in the Democrat Party, the courts, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia have used their political, judicial, information, and entertainment powers in manners most perverse.

Thus, political power, especially political power in the most powerful nation on earth, is no small matter and should never be taken lightly. That is why when we vote, we always do so prayerfully. When it came time to vote in November, Michelle and I were as certain as any human being can be that the next President of the United States was going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Thus, as my wife put it above, the choice was a “no-brainer.”

Along with his solid efforts at remaking our courts, President Trump has already done much to support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-America agenda. His Department of Justice has reversed the Obama administration’s efforts to undermine biology and religious liberty. An executive order re-instated and expanded the “Mexico City policy” which prevents foreign groups who promote and provide abortions from receiving U.S. aid funds.

Trump and his EPA are “shredding” the foolish Obama climate agenda. “Slashing red tape at historic levels,” while saving billions in regulatory costs, the Trump administration has ended hundreds of Obama-era economic regulations.

None of this—not one single bit of it—would have happened in a Hillary Clinton (or virtually any other democrat presidential) administration. Whatever Donald Trump is, he is not Hillary Clinton. Enough said.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Saturday, September 2, 2017

A Clash of Cultures: The Bourgeois vs. the Burning Man

It seems that University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax—who took her own turn melting the snowflakes at Middlebury College a few years ago —again has liberals in a lather. On August 9 of this year, professor Wax, along with law professor Larry Alexander—currently the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego—penned an Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer lamenting the breakdown of our nation’s “bourgeois culture.”

If you’re like me and need a primer on exactly what is a “bourgeois culture,” according to Wax and Alexander, the “script” of America’s bourgeois culture declares:
Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
Shocking behavior, right? And imagine that, I’ve been steeped in the “bourgeois culture” most of my life and never knew it! In addition to pointing out what is bourgeois culture, the good professors also note that the collapse of America’s bourgeois culture has led to many undesirable outcomes, including,
Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.
Again, shocking. In other words, virtually no one should be surprised by these outcomes. Conservatives across the political spectrum have been pointing to such—along with additional sad, sorry, rotten fruit of liberalism—for decades. Nevertheless, if you have an inkling of an understanding of modern liberalism, you don’t have to think too hard to imagine the outrage from the left directed at the two law professors. In their “Statement about the Wax Op-Ed” the University of Pennsylvania’s (UPenn) graduate student Union—GET-UP—condemned “in the strongest possible terms” Wax and Alexander’s “toxic racist, sexist, homophobic” conclusions.

A couple of weeks after “the Wax Op-Ed,” the UPenn school newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, ran a letter from a group of 54 UPenn doctoral students and alumni. The letter went so far as to imply that Wax and Alexander—attired in their “appropriately respectable (white) diction and dress”—are white supremacists, and even attempted to link the Wax Op-Ed to the recent events in Charlottesville, VA. Imagine that. Sexual responsibility, marriage, hard work, education, respect for authority, and patriotism are “racist.” The appropriate image here would be a Dr. King “face-palm.”

To further liberal angst, in a follow-up interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian the day after her Op-Ed ran, professor Wax doubled-down in her defense of the bourgeois culture. Declaring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior, Wax told the student paper, “I don’t shrink from the word, ‘superior.’” She added, “Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify” these values. “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.” Furthermore, Wax made it clear—because when talking to liberals, one must always make this clear—that she was not implying the superiority of whites. “Bourgeois values aren’t just for white people,” she explained.

In other words, as the professors’ original piece concluded, “All cultures are not equal.” Of course this is like saying “all pizzas are not equal,” but such a conclusion flies in the face of the multiculturalism preached by the modern left. And all cultures are not equal, because all values are not equal.

Let me make clear something that professor Wax’s “Anglo-Protestant” comment implies: America’s “bourgeois values” are superior because they are, essentially, Christian values. Thus a bourgeois culture is superior because it is essentially a Christian culture, and that ultimately is why the left attacked Wax and Alexander’s piece. As The Miracle and Magnificence of America—and any other sound account of U.S. history—reveals, America was founded by Christians and upon Christian values and principles. The death, disease, and moral rot so prevalent in much of America today is there because many of us have abandoned these values and decided to make our own rules.

Nowhere is this clearer than with the obscene “Burning Man Festival” about to wind up (ends September 2) in the Black Rock Desert in Nevada. It what could be billed as a liberal utopia, the Burning Man Festival—often referred to simply as “Burning Man” (BM)—has been notoriously noted for its nude welcoming committee, “mass lesbian romps,” obscene sculptures, and human petting zoo. And what festival organized, occupied, and run by those corrupted by liberalism would be complete without an “Orgy Dome?” But it’s conservatives who are “obsessed with sex,” right libs?

Of course, rainbow flags are present in abundance, and everything LGBT is celebrated and promoted at BM. According to The Sun, “In the past, electric car pioneer Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook joined the rebellious souls at Burning Man.” Given this, is anyone surprised that the modern corporate culture (especially the digital corporate culture) has essentially fully embraced the perverse sexual agenda of the modern left?

Some of the 10 principles of BM include “Radical Self-reliance” (“Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.”) and “Radical Self-expression.” Just what the world needs: more people focused on themselves. Also included among the BM principles is “Decommodification.” According to the Wikipedia page devoted to the concept, “Decommodification is the process of viewing utilities as an entitlement, rather than as a commodity that must be paid or traded for.”

So in the Nevada desert we have tens of thousands of hedonistic heathens learning how to be even more focused on themselves and learning even more about how to get someone else to pay for their stuff. Lovely.

Make no mistake about it, liberals will export the culture of Burning Man to as much of America as possible. They have already done so in just about every large city and public college campus in the U.S. To a great extent, the election of Donald Trump was an attempt to stem this tide, but as these last eight months have well demonstrated, liberals are willing to fight for their “values.” So what will it be America: the Christian values of the bourgeois culture or the godless values of the Burning Man culture?

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, August 21, 2017

Yes, By All Means, Let’s Ban the Democrat(ic) Party

You may have recently read a piece similar to this by Jeffrey Lord, or likewise, an older piece by Daniel Greenfield. However, given recent events, some details not discussed by Mr. Lord and Mr. Greenfield and the fact that I spent some time on the history of the Democrat Party in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, the idea of banning the party of slavery deserves more attention.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Republican Party controlled the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency. Sensing the beginning of the end to the institution of slavery in the U.S., Democrat-controlled states began to secede from the Union. South Carolina was first in December of 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia followed in January of 1861. Tellingly, in their secession declarations, among the list of grievances, virtually every southern state referenced the election of Lincoln and the threat he and his party presented to the institution of slavery.

South Carolina declared,
[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
Alabama’s secession document read:
[T]he election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republican Party], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security…
As the fifth state to secede, Georgia also cited the election of Lincoln and the Republicans:
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [the republicans] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [who voted to secede]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.
The Confederate States of America was formed at the Montgomery Convention in February of 1861. For the southern states—and anyone else in the world paying attention—the agenda of the newly formed (and electorally victorious) Republican Party was clear. From the creation of the Republican Party, every party platform that mentioned slavery forcefully denounced it. After the infamous Dred Scott ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the subsequent Republican platform strongly condemned the ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. Tellingly, the corresponding Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling and condemned all efforts to end slavery in the U.S.

The Republican Party platform of 1856 read,
That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.
On the other hand, every Democrat Party platform from 1840 to 1860—six consecutive—was in support of slavery. Likewise, as Mr. Lord notes, “The Democratic Party opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.” If left-wing social justice “warriors” want to tear down the symbols of slavery in America, none is bigger than the Democrat Party.

But there are other reasons for tearing down the party of slavery. Slavery was a terrible sin that nearly destroyed the United States of America. Likewise, tens of millions of Americans today selfishly cling to immoral behaviors that threaten to destroy our nation. As was the case with slavery, and again because of foolish judges who are blind to the laws of the Law Giver, many of these wicked behaviors have the protection of U.S. Law. And just as was the case in the 18th century, only one major political party today—the Democrat Party—has given political cover and endorsement to the immorality that plagues America.

In a moral and just society, the killing of the unborn and the war on marriage and the family would cease. (Along with tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, why isn’t the left seeking to expunge any and all references to the racist eugenics apologist—who addressed the KKK and spoke fondly of Stalinist Russia—Margaret Sanger?) In a moral and just society, there would be no debate about who is a man and who is a woman. In a moral and just society, if a man refused to work, politicians—in an effort to buy votes—would not rush to feed him.

In a moral and just society, instead of clamoring for the removal of any reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the like, protestors should demand that rainbow-covered crosswalks that glorify sexual sin be painted over (or at least be adorned with Scripture to denote the rainbow’s true meaning). In a moral and just society, virtually everything the modern left stands for—from abortion to the welfare state, wealth redistribution, sexual perversions, gender lies, the destruction of marriage, and so on—would be banned.

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

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Why Does the Little League World Series Discriminate?

While all sound-minded Americans await the start of college football season and the NFL, to tide us over, we are soon to have the awesome American pleasure of the Little League World Series (LLWS) to enjoy. The U.S. regionals—which determine the eight American teams (in addition to the eight international teams) in the LLWS—are complete. Today, August 17, the tournament to determine the 71st LLWS champion begins. Noticeably absent again this year: girls. Someone should write a memo.

In 1974—of course, thanks to a ruling from a female judge—the Little League Federal Charter was amended to allow girls to play Little League Baseball. Since then, by my count (with the LLWS consisting of 8 teams each year from 1974 to 2000—with only 4 in 1975—and 16 teams annually since 2001), there have been 484 teams in the LLWS. Figuring 12 players per team (there are sometimes more and rarely less), that’s at least 5,808 players in the LLWS since girls were allowed to participate.

During that time, and in spite of the fact that one in seven U.S. Little League players is a girl, only 18 girls have participated in the LLWS, including only six American girls. That means that since 1974, less than one-third of one percent of LLWS participants have been girls. All of those ignorant of human anatomy, biology, and physiology—an ever-increasing number of Americans, it seems—should be aghast.

You see, the teams participating in Little League state district or sectional tournaments, and later the nation regionals and LLWS, are made up of all-star players—the best of the best. Almost always these players are selected by the local league coaches, who are almost always men. Obviously blatant and ugly discrimination has kept hundreds of thousands (Little League is the world’s largest organized youth sports organization) of 11-to-13-year-old girls from their dream of playing in the LLWS. Someone should be fired.

And in the name of all that is “fair,” how in the world—or rather the wide-wide world of sports—has ESPN allowed itself to play a part in perpetuating the perverse patriarchy that is clearly at work in the LLWS? After all, in order to show us all how sufficiently “progressive” they are, we are talking about the media outlet who gave Bruce Jenner—one of the greatest American Olympians ever—an award for pretending to be a girl. Since 2001, ESPN has covered live LLWS games. Until girls are properly represented at the LLWS, clearly this must stop.

Additionally, when are we going to see the first “transgender boy” (a girl who has delusions that she is a boy) in the LLWS? Don’t tell me that with the recent rampant growth of “transgenderism” across the U.S. there aren’t all-star level transgender boys playing on Little League teams across the U.S. and the world. After all, we have seen that girls who are allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs like testosterone—and thus help make up the sad differences with which science has shackled girls (biology is sometimes such a bigot!)—are quite capable of competing well against boys. (As the previous link demonstrates, they dominate other girls.)

Of course this also means that “transgender girls” (delusional boys) must also be allowed to compete in Little League Softball. As this trend grows, look for biological boys to take over the ranks of the Little League Softball World Series. But hey, that’s just the breaks when one is devoted to “diversity.”

Isn’t it interesting that in the name of diversity, liberals seem to have no problem with boys taking trophies from girls? Thus, why does it bother them when men supposedly take jobs from women?

After James Damore—the “knuckle-dragging troglodyte” since fired by Google—wrote his diversity memo, aptly entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” liberals circled the wagons, donned their “social justice warrior” attire, and went after another “ignorant” white man’s scalp. As you almost certainly well know by now, Damore’s “crime” was to suggest that the “gender gap” in Google’s hiring practices (men outnumber women at Google by a more than 2 to 1 ratio) was perhaps the result of something other than “implicit and explicit biases.” Perhaps, he suggested, there are (GASP!) biological factors at work when it comes to women and the tech industry.

Long before anyone ever “Googled” anything, the facts bore this out. Women now vastly outnumber men at U.S. colleges and universities. As Newsmax recently noted, “Women currently hold almost 60 percent of all bachelor degrees, and account for almost half of students in law, medical, and business graduate programs, the [Denver] Post reported.” In spite of this, over 80 percent of computer science majors are men. This has been the trend since the early 1980s, when modern computer science became “a thing.”

What’s more, how many women garbage collectors, oil-rig workers, or auto mechanics have you seen or do you know? Notice liberals rarely, if ever, complain about the lack of “diversity” in these industries. And as I’ve noted before, and even more telling than what we see within the LLWS or virtually any other sports or employment arena, in the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no human being born a female has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues. Again, and in spite of the tantrums and lies of liberalism, this is biology, not bias.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, August 14, 2017

On President’s Condemning Racial Violence, Some Perspective

On the protest in Charlottesville this past weekend, Pajama Media’s Roger Simon, a self-described “Jewish fella,” put it well:
[T]he types who surfaced in Charlottesville on Saturday are certainly human beings of the most repellent and disgusting sort, murderous too—pretty much violent, evil sociopaths. I wouldn’t mind if they were all rounded up, put in a space ship, and sent on a one-way trip to Alpha Centauri.
Offering some “perspective,” Mr. Simon continues,
[F]or the sake of argument, let's say there are as many as 100,000 white supremacists in America today. (This is undoubtedly a vast exaggeration, but let's use it, as I said, for the sake of argument.) 
Meanwhile, since the 1920s, our population has more than tripled to some 325 million. Using the figure of 100,000 white supremacists (not many of whom made it to Charlottesville fortunately), this puts the percentage of white supremacists in the U.S. at a puny 0.03%. Terrible people, yes, but no epidemic by any stretch of the imagination… 
More to the point, are there more of these white supremacists than members of the equally violent and disgusting Antifa movement? Again statistics are hard to come by. (Both sides like to wear masks.) But I tend to doubt it. If anything, Antifa has been far more active, until Saturday. 
Obviously, none of this is to exonerate in the slightest the human excrement that descended on Charlottesville. It's just to put them in perspective.
On President Trump’s condemnation of the violence in Charlottesville, Thomas Lifson at American Thinker offers some more perspective:
[The] critics [of President Trump’s condemnation] were going to slam the president no matter what he said or did… 
I am sorry, but maintaining that a president of the United States must shape his actions according to what the media and his critics (but I repeat myself) might say is an abject surrender. This is the standard operating procedure of Republicans pre-Trump, and it has brought us to our current mess… 
I hope and expect the president will have more to say, and while condemning Nazis, remain even-handed. I condemn everyone that seeks to oppress others on the basis of race, no matter which race is being demonized.
I, too, hope that President Trump has more to say on this matter, but then again, U.S. Presidents have often disappointed when it comes to matters involving the hate-filled violence and rhetoric of a small number of their supporters. Take the last President, for example. Whether Ferguson, Missouri (more than once), Baltimore, St. Paul, Baton Rouge, Dallas, Oakland, and so on, time and again, President Obama refused to condemn the violent racists of Black Lives Matter (BLM). On the contrary, Obama and the Democrat Party regularly encouraged the perverse cause of BLM and gave them political cover.

In spite of their regular use of violence, destruction, and racist rhetoric, in August of 2015, the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution “affirming” BLM. In July of 2016, at the funeral of five Dallas police officers murdered by a BLM-inspired racist, President Obama continued to defend the BLM movement. After the Dallas shootings, law enforcement leaders accused President Obama of helping to encourage a “war on cops.” Politico reported,
I think [the Obama administration] continued appeasements at the federal level with the Department of Justice, their appeasement of violent criminals, their refusal to condemn movements like Black Lives Matter, actively calling for the death of police officers, that type of thing, all the while blaming police for the problems in this country has led directly to the climate that has made Dallas possible,” William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said in an interview with Fox on Friday morning.
Additionally, BLM has long made it clear what they were all about. As Katie Pavlich noted in 2015,
It's time to expose the Black Lives Matter [BLM] movement for what it is: a racist, violent hate group that promotes the execution of police officers. The evidence is in their rhetoric and written on their shirts.
Miss Pavlich goes on to chronicle how BLM has elevated individuals like Assata Shakur, “otherwise known as Joanne Chesimard, who shot and killed a New Jersey State Trooper back in 1973.” Last year National Review’s David French highlighted a “sickening” essay by BLM that expressed support and admiration for—in addition to Fidel Castro—Michael Finney, Ralph Goodwin, Charles Hill, and Huey Newton. All were cop killers.

French rightly asks, “How many despots and murderers must Black Lives Matter praise before it’s consigned to the fringe of American life? How many riots and murders must it incite — often through lies and hoaxes?” Not yet enough, it seems.

In spite of all of this, a single incident by White Nationalists in Virginia—with not a hint of support from President Trump or his administration—and all of a sudden the Charlottesville racists are Trump’s “people.” Of course, eager to paint anyone on the right as a racist, describing the Virginia fools as “Trump’s people” has been a regular refrain from pundits on the left. In spite of all of the evidence linking Obama, the democrats, and BLM, as far as I can recall, the liberal mainstream media never sought to label black racists as “Obama’s people.”

Of course, this should surprise no one, and I expect the double-standard in this matter (and many others) to continue. Instead of proving Trump a racist, more than anything else, the events in Charlottesville reveal again reveal the depths of corruption of the left-wing media.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

My Interview with Larry Pratt of "Gun Owners of America"

Last week I recorded an interview with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America (GOA). For the most part, the interview centered on The Miracle and Magnificence of America. It first aired last Saturday on the "Gun Owners News Hour," and the podcast can be heard here:

http://podcast.gcnlive.com/gunOwnersNews/080517.mp3

Mr. Pratt is the executive director of GOA, a position he's held for over 40 years. He's a long-time defender of the Second Amendment and a staunch advocate for the gun rights of Americans. Mr. Pratt has appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan, NBC's Today Show, CBS' Good Morning America, CNN's Crossfire and Larry King Live, Fox's Hannity and Colmes. Additionally, with more that 1.5 million members, Gun Owners of America is the second (to the NRA) largest gun advocacy organization in America. Their website is here: www.gunowners.org; their Facebook page is here: www.facebook.com/GunOwners, and their YouTube channel is here: www.youtube.com/user/GunOwnersofAmerica/featured.

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