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

If you "Like" this page, please visit our 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---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Friday, December 7, 2018

Lauren Daigle: Tell the Truth on Homosexuality

At 27 years old, with the 2015 GMA Dove Award for New Artist of the Year and Song of the Year for How Can It Be, along with the 2016 Dove Award for Artist of the Year and a 2016 Grammy nomination, Lauren Daigle is currently one of the most popular contemporary Christian music artists. According to Forbes, earlier this year Miss Daigle made history “by becoming the first Christian artist to top all five of Billboard’s core Christian charts simultaneously.”

Just days ago, Miss Daigle was nominated for two 2019 Grammy awards: Best Contemporary Christian Music Album and Best Contemporary Christian Music Song. In addition, her “Behold Christmas Tour” is selling out all over the country, including this weekend in my home state of Georgia. (Not a day goes by without my hearing an ad for the show on the radio.)

Her popularity within the Christian community, along with her amazing voice, have resulted in Miss Daigle obtaining some recent mainstream popularity as well. To go along with her mega-popularity on Christian radio, secular radio stations have started playing her songs. In addition, she recently appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s The Tonight Show and The Ellen DeGeneres Show.

After her appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Miss Daigle received some criticism from Christians who thought she had no business performing on a TV show hosted by a lesbian. In response to the criticism, as noted on The Christian Post, Miss Daigle replied,
“I think the second we start drawing lines around which people are able to be approached and which aren’t, we’ve already completely missed the heart of God,” Daigle told WAY-FM Radio.

“I don’t have all the answers in life and I’m definitely not gonna act like I do, but the one thing that I know for sure is I can’t choose who I’m supposed to be kind to and who I’m supposed to show love to and who I’m not, because that’s the mission right?” she continued. “Be who Christ was to everyone.”
Miss Daigle makes a fair point about “approaching” others and being Christ “to everyone,” but her construction of familiar straw men here—“I can’t choose who I’m supposed to be kind to and who I’m supposed to show love to…”—should have been troubling to the discerning. She soon proved some of her critics justified.

Several weeks after appearing on DeGeneres’ show, and no-doubt after some contemplation of the criticism of her appearance, Miss Daigle appeared on The Domenick Nati Show on iHeart Radio. Mr. Nati asked her, as a Christian, her stance on homosexuality and whether or not it was a sin. Miss Daigle’s response was indeed “troubling.” The Christian Post reports her reply to Mr. Nati:
“I can’t honestly answer on that, in the sense of I have too many people that I love and they are homosexuals,” Daigle told the celebrity publicist.

“I can’t say one way or the other, I’m not God. When people ask questions like that, I just say, ‘Read the Bible and find out for yourself. And when you find out let me know because I’m learning too,’” she added.
So again we see a Christian celebrity unwilling to stand for the truth on matters in the sexual realm. Sadly, whether with athletes, actors, musicians, and the like, it has become far too common for Christian entertainers to go the way of the world when it comes to sex. Of course, sometimes such compromise is a sad attempt to gain or hold onto fame and fortune. However, sometimes such compromise is the result of fear. In our hyper-sensitive pc-culture, many Christians today are afraid that the truth may offend.

What many such Christians have failed to grasp is that the truth is often—if not always—offensive. As John MacArthur recently put it, Christianity that doesn’t offend isn’t Christianity. In a recent interview with Ben Shapiro, Pastor MacArthur said that one of his goals as a pastor is to “offend everyone:”
The whole purpose of the Christian message is to confront the sinner’s sin so you can call the sinner to repentance and forgiveness. The sinner doesn’t like that.
MacArthur continues:
That is my initial goal: To tell you that you are without God in the world, that there’s only one Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, that you’re in sin, that sin brings death and punishment, but the good news is that Jesus Christ is the Savior who has provided a way for you to be forgiven by buying your sins with His body on the tree.
MacArthur added, “I offend people all the time because that’s necessary. If you try to develop a kind of Christianity that’s inoffensive, that’s not Christianity, it’s not the Gospel.” Such offense is often necessary, because those who most need to hear the truth are the least likely to want to listen.

Jesus Himself was also often “offensive,” so much so that many who were following Him prior to his crucifixion turned away. Simply quote Jesus sometimes, and you’ll find out just how offensive He still is. Jesus warned us that because of Him, we would be hated. The “City of God” will always be despised by “The City of Man.”

As a man who has found the cure for a terrible disease, followers of Christ should enthusiastically tell the truth with courage, conviction, and love. Along with ministering to the sick, poor, hungry, and broken; along with building churches, schools, hospitals, and orphanages, Christians also must confidently and strongly stand up to the lies of atheism, humanism, socialism, communism, Islam, the LGBT agenda, and the like.

In a world more devoted to its “isms” than to the God who made us, shining the light on such lies is precisely why some Christians are frequently found to be so “offensive.” In other words, authentic Christianity will rarely win a popularity contest with those devoted to the things of this world. Sadly, it seems many Christian celebrities are more concerned with popularity than with the truth.

Speaking of popularity, as measured by Billboard, with 20 weeks at number one, the most popular Christian song of 2018 is Lauren Daigle’s You Say. The lyrics of the song are filled with the phrase “You Say.” Of course, “You Say” is a reference to God speaking. Miss Daigle told Billboard, “I knew this would be a song of my identity. ‘You say I am loved.’ That's the truth.” How does she know that’s “the truth?” How does she know anything of what God has said? Presumably she knows these things because they are written in God’s Word. Yet somehow the truth on matters in the sexual realm elude her.

Daigle’s 2015 “Song of the Year” How Can It Be begins, “I am guilty.” Guilty of what? Sin? How do we know what is sin? The song Miss Daigle sang on The Ellen DeGeneres Show declares “You saved me.” Saved from what or whom? It is unfortunate that many contemporary Christian musicians are such poor theologians. We need them to be better.

Music is a powerful instrument for spreading the truth, and modern Christian musicians not only need to be good stewards of God’s Word when they write and sing, but they also need at least to be willing to stand up for the truths that their music often avoids. Our world is swimming in sexual sin, and the pain and suffering as a result is widespread and horrific. Yet very few Christians with a large audience want to address these grave matters.

Where are the Christian songs extolling sexual morality and marriage as defined by God? If not songs, then why not use concerts as a platform to otherwise spread the truth on marriage and sex? We must meet the enemy where he is at work. Because of the myriad of lies presented by the enemy—who is now even able to deceive concerning who is a male and who is a female—the world is desperate for the truth on such things.

Christians who find themselves on The Ellen DeGeneres Show or The View should ask themselves: why do unbelievers want to share their platform with me? Is it for “such a time as this?” Or could it be because they believe such Christians won’t present them with uncomfortable truths? Last year, after hearing her tell the truth about homosexuality, Ellen DeGeneres cancelled a scheduled appearance by gospel singer Kim Burrell.

Sometimes the most loving thing we can do for people is tell them what they don’t want to hear. They might be offended, they might be made uncomfortable, and we might become less popular. However, it’s far better to be made uncomfortable by the truth in this world than in the next.

(See a version of this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Monday, November 19, 2018

A History of Thanksgiving (Taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America)

Sir Walter Raleigh’s first attempts at settling the New World were disastrous. The English, who were now trying to gain a foothold in the New World, were succumbing to the same greed that had earlier blinded the Spaniards. Starvation, disease, hostile Indians, and other hardships, including a whole colony lost (the Lost Colony of Roanoke), led to dampened enthusiasm for New World expeditions.

It would be nearly 20 years after Raleigh’s initial ventures before enough English interest could again be sparked for more New World adventure. Despite recruiting “sermons” that contained messages of evangelical outreach, and the preamble of the Company’s charter, written by King James I, which contained the words, “…propagating of Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages, living in these parts, to human civility and to a settled and quiet government,” the lust for gold was, again, what drove European men across the Atlantic.

On May 14, 1607, headed by a seven-man council, which included John Smith, 144 men settled Jamestown. Because of their misguided efforts it was a disaster from the beginning. These men battled the elements, disease, Indians, starvation, and one another. The lone minister on the adventure, Robert Hunt, did his best to keep the others focused on God. His sermons went mostly unheeded; however, he persevered. By February of 1608 only 38 of the 144 remained alive.

The death rate did not abate with time. As Peter Marshall and David Manuel note,

For example, of the 1,200 people who went out to Virginia in 1619, only 200 were left alive by 1620. Why this horrible continuing death rate? There is no logical explanation, except one: year after year they steadfastly refused to trust God—or indeed to include Him in any of their deliberations.

The next settlers to cross the Atlantic would not make the same mistakes. They were not seeking wealth and prosperity, but a new home. They believed that America was their spiritual destiny. The Pilgrims (dubbed “Separatists” by the Church of England), and the Puritans who followed them, knew better than to undertake anything without God.

Aboard the Mayflower were 102 passengers, less than half of whom were of Pastor John Robinson’s Separatist flock. After a grueling two-month voyage, on November 11, 1620, they dropped anchor in Cape Cod, and heeding the advice and wisdom of their pastor, the Pilgrims drafted a compact that would embody the same principles of government upon which American democracy would rest. It read,

In the name of God, amen. We whose names are under-written…Having undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic…constitute and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…the 11th of November…Anno Domini 1620.

John Carver, who had chartered the Mayflower, was chosen as the first governor of the colony. His was the first signature on the Mayflower Compact, which is considered by many to be the world’s first written constitution. William Bradford would soon replace Carver as governor and would serve in that capacity for 31 years. On December 21, 1620, the Pilgrims settled at what would become known as Plymouth.

A replica model of the Mayflower. Created by Norbert Schnitzler.

Though their efforts were “for the glory of God,” the Pilgrims were not immune to the many hardships of an untamed America. Before long, many started dying. William Bradford’s wife Dorothy was among the casualties as she fell overboard and drowned. (Initially, while dwellings were being built, the Pilgrims lived mostly aboard the Mayflower.) Due in part to a brutal winter, dozens would die in those first few months, including 13 of 18 wives. In spite of hardships, the Pilgrims were undeterred and drew ever closer to God.

The months turned into years and saw the Pilgrims develop good relations with the local natives including Massasoit, a wise and welcoming chief of the local tribes, Samoset, and especially Tisquantum, or Squanto.

In the middle of March 1621, just as the Pilgrims were coming out of the devastatingly harsh winter, a guard alerted his comrades with the cry of “Indian coming!” Wearing only a loincloth as he walked into the Pilgrims’ camp, Samoset astonished the English onlookers with a hearty “Welcome!” Then speaking surprisingly clear English, he followed his friendly greeting with a request, “Have you got any beer?”

The Pilgrims informed their friendly guest that they were out of beer, and offered him brandy instead. After a hearty snack of brandy, biscuit, butter, cheese, pudding, and roast duck, Samoset was ready to answer questions. In spite of their difficult and deadly plight, Samoset’s words gave the Pilgrims great cause to thank God.

On March 22, 1621, Samoset returned to the Pilgrims with Squanto, who spoke even better English. Squanto’s life is an amazing tale of God’s provision that very closely resembles the account of Joseph from Genesis, chapter 37. Soon after Samoset introduced Squanto to the Pilgrims, a meeting with Massasoit, chief of the Wampanoag people, was arranged. Massasoit, Samoset, Squanto, and dozens of Wampanoag warriors traveled to Plymouth to meet the Pilgrims. With Samoset serving as the interpreter for Massasoit, the meeting was extremely fruitful. A peace treaty and a treaty of mutual aid were struck with Massasoit that would last for decades.

Massasoit and his party returned home, but Squanto remained with the Pilgrims. Being a man without a tribe, personally witnessing the desperation of the Pilgrims, and already having adopted their faith, Squanto took pity upon his new-found English friends and wanted to help them succeed in their New World. He taught them how to fish for eels and alewives, plant corn and pumpkins, refine maple syrup, trap beavers, hunt deer, and other skills essential to their survival.

Squanto was instrumental in the survival of the Pilgrims—so much so that, according to William Bradford, the Pilgrims considered Squanto “a special instrument sent of God for their good, beyond their expectation.” Massasoit also was an amazing example of God’s providential care for the Pilgrims. Like Powhatan had been at Jamestown, Massasoit was probably the only other native chief on the northeast coast of America who would have welcomed the white man as a friend.

In early April of 1621, with supplies running dangerously low, the Captain of the Mayflower, Christopher Jones, decided he could remain in America no longer. On April 5, 1621, the Mayflower returned to England. As the ship disappeared over the horizon, almost certainly a nervous uneasiness came upon more than a few Pilgrims who remained in the New World. Their last ties to their former home were gone. They, perhaps, felt more alone than at any point of their amazing journey.

The summer of 1621 was beautiful and, thanks in no small measure to the help of Squanto, bountiful. Governor Bradford declared a day of public Thanksgiving to be held in October. Massasoit was invited. Surprising the Pilgrims, he showed up a day early with 90 of his tribe. To feed such a crowd, the Pilgrims would have to go deep into their food supply. However, Massasoit did not show up empty handed. He had instructed his braves to hunt for the occasion, and they came with several dressed dear and fat turkeys. The Thanksgiving turned into a three-day celebration filled with feasting and games.

The First Thanksgiving, by Jean-Léon Gérôme.

A few weeks after the first Thanksgiving and about a year after the Pilgrims arrived in the New World, the Fortune sailed into Plymouth on its way to Virginia. The main cargo was an additional 35 colonists and a charter granted from the New England Company. There was tremendous celebration over the new charter; however, unlike the Indians, the new colonists arrived virtually empty handed. They had no extra clothing, food, or tools. The Pilgrims would have to adjust their winter food rationing plan severely.

The winter of 1621-1622 was as difficult as feared. The Pilgrims entered what has been described as their “starving time.” Some reports reveal that at times, food rations for each person were a mere five kernels of corn per day. Miraculously, that winter not one Pilgrim died of starvation.

There was no Thanksgiving celebration in 1622. When the spring planting season of 1623 rolled around, the Pilgrims realized that to fend off further hunger and rationing, a corn harvest at least twice as large as last season was necessary. However, a lackluster work ethic prevailed among them. This was mainly because the contract entered into with their merchant sponsors in London required everything the Pilgrims produced was to go into a common store and be shared. As Rush Limbaugh has often pointed out on his radio broadcast that celebrates Thanksgiving Day, the Pilgrims were languishing under socialism.

The leaders of the colony then decreed that for the additional planting, individual plots of land would be split, and the yield could be used at the planters’ discretion. Thus, as the concept of private property was introduced, the Pilgrims seemed infused and invigorated with new hope and purpose. As Marshall and Manuel point out, “The yield that year was so abundant that the Pilgrims ended up with a surplus of corn, which they were able to use in trading that winter with northern Indians, who had not had a good growing season.”

On November 29, 1623, two years after the first Thanksgiving, Governor William Bradford made an official proclamation for a second day of Thanksgiving. In it Governor Bradford thanked God for their abundant harvest, bountiful game, protection from “the ravages of savages…and disease,” and for the “freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience.” Well over a hundred Natives attended, bringing plenty of turkey and venison along with them.

The Pilgrims, and the Puritans who followed them, had the proper perspective. As Bradford would so discernibly note, “As one small candle may light a thousand, so the light kindled here has shown unto many, yea in some sort to our whole nation…We have noted these things so that you might see their worth and not negligently lose what your fathers have obtained with so much hardship.”

May the light of those first Thanksgivings never be extinguished.

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

Thursday, October 18, 2018

We’re Not Battling “Craziness.” We're Battling Evil.

Ever since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, the American left has been—as my mother likes to put it—in “rare form.” Such “form” these last two years has resulted in obscene fits by individual leftists and, yes, liberal mobs. Someone should ask these petulant, angry leftists—as did my mother when she encountered a tantrum (usually from a child): Do you get a fever with those fits?

The answer is, of course, no, because—in spite of what many have implied as they’ve witnessed the rage, violence, and vulgarities so often employed by today’s liberals—we’re not dealing with sickness, or mere lunacy, craziness, stupidity, or even the deranged. These characterizations are tempting—I’ve used them myself—and often quite accurate, but they fail to describe best what we are dealing with.

As Selwyn Duke alluded to recently, and others noted more directly years ago, modern liberalism—aided and abetted by the democrat party—is a dastardly tool of the enemy of all mankind. It’s like a modern-day Mephistopheles luring hordes of Faustian fools with promises of worldly pleasure—especially sex—and perpetual provision from a paternal godless nanny state. Such dark pursuits consume their personal lives, and thus, their politics as well. This is what results when one makes a god of government.

Speaking of “dark pursuits,” it seems that witches now outnumber Presbyterians in the U.S. Speaking of witches, it seems the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation brought them even more into the mainstream of modern liberalism. So much so that, now that we’ve entered the Kavanaugh-era of the Supreme Court, Vox saw fit to report on how modern-day witches are helping the “faithful” to cope.

Part of this coping involves placing hexes on Justice Kavanaugh. New York City witches have an event scheduled this coming Saturday (10/20/2018) for devoted occultists. A $10 donation is suggested for those attending. Half of the proceeds will be split between—of course—Planned Parenthood and an LGBT organization. Justice Kavanaugh is just the latest target of those invoking witchcraft in order to “magically bind” President Trump and his administration.

As Rod Dreher implies, it’s no surprise that witchcraft attracts feminazis who wish to rebel against age-old family norms and anything remotely resembling Christianity. Thus, it’s also little surprise that witchcraft fits so nicely under the tent of modern liberalism.

It seems Arizona democrat Kyrsten Sinema, who’s battling Colonel Martha McSally—a former fighter pilot and combat veteran—for Jeff Flake’s seat in the U.S. Senate, has long been impressed with those who invoke the “dark arts.” As the Washington Examiner notes,
It was during the height of the Iraq War when Sinema, then a far-left protest organizer, summoned supernatural help to stop the Iraq War.

Emails obtained by the Washington Examiner show Sinema inviting a prominent coven of feminist witches in Arizona called Pagan Cluster to celebrate International Women’s Day and to protest the war in March of 2003. Code Pink protesters wore pink, obviously enough, and the Women in Black wore black. But Sinema encouraged the witches to wear “colorful clothing and come ready to dance, twirl, and stay in touch with your inner creativity and with the Earth.”
Today’s liberalism isn’t merely “intrinsically uncivil,” but rather inherently evil. What else would you call a cause so devoted to killing the most innocent and helpless among us? What else would you call a cause so devoted to keeping legal the gruesome act of killing the most innocent and helpless among us that they would stoop to the disgraceful display (including witchcraft) witnessed during the Kavanaugh confirmation?

What else would you call a cause that is so devoted to the perverse LGBT agenda? What else would you call a cause that deliberately seeks to ruin Christian business owners because they refuse to bow to the perverse LGBT agenda? What else would you call a cause that refuses to acknowledge who is a male and who is a female—and makes expensive and oppressive public policy based on such absurdities?

Whether a baker, a florist, a coach, a campus speaker, an insurance company, a fast food chain, a Supreme Court justice, or the president of the United States, anyone or anything who stands in the way of the wicked efforts of American liberals to remake our nation into a pagan utopia has become a target of the angry, vengeful left. Ugly mob tactics (which are encouraged by elected democrats) and witchcraft (which, as noted above, was embraced by wannabe-elected democrats) are just two of the despicable means employed by those corrupted by liberalism.

We should be somewhat thankful for the mobs and the witches operating so openly. With such clear “nastiness,” the mask further slips from what the modern democrat party really represents. As Sun-Tzu reveals, “In the midst of chaos, there is opportunity.”

The more subtle strategies employed by liberals are more dangerous, because they’re more effective. The devil’s more deadly when he operates ignored and unseen for what he really is. “Healthcare is a right.” “Love is love.” “Women have the right to choose.” “Save the earth!” All of these are much more effective than hexes, ignorant chanting and clawing at heavy locked doors like mindless zombies, shouting at your political opponents in restaurants, or physically assaulting those with whom you disagree.

The recent political victories of Donald Trump and republicans have done more than improve our economy and discourage our enemies. By taking power from the left, they’ve helped bring darkness into the light. As Verbal Kint put it, “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” With today’s liberals fighting so desperately to hold on to, or regain political power, that trick is getting harder to pull off.

(See this column at American Thinker and Life Site News.)

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

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

A Conservative Supreme Court Must Deliver

After the confirmation of now Justice Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, Susan Collins was widely lauded by republicans and conservatives alike for her speech before the U.S. Senate. As she announced her support for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, I, like many others, was also very grateful to hear her condemn the hideous tactics employed by democrats to keep him off the highest court in America.

While I agree with and like much of what Senator Collins said in her Friday afternoon speech, I did not enjoy or appreciate her emphasis on “precedent” as she tried to persuade her audience that a Justice Kavanaugh would be no real threat to Roe.

I’m under no illusions when it comes to Senator Collins’ sad position on the supposed “right” to kill children in the womb. It is possible that, in spite of her speech, she’s under no illusions about the very real threat Justice Kavanaugh poses to Roe. Perhaps Senator Collins just heard what she wanted to hear in her talks with Judge Kavanaugh.

Perhaps she was just providing herself political cover if the current court indeed reverses the tragedy that is Roe v. Wade. Or, perhaps Justice Kavanaugh was just careful enough with his language that he was able to provide Senator Collins answers that would comfort her without revealing anything about how he might actually vote on any issue. (Per the “Ginsburg Rule,”—or, more accurately, the “Biden Rule”—and the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, U.S. Senators well know that nominees to the Supreme Court are under no obligation to reveal how they would vote in matters that might come before them.)

Whatever Senator Collins’ real thoughts on Justice Kavanaugh, many of us who voted for Mr. Trump were very pleased with the confirmation of another conservative federal judge, especially one that should play a significant role in decidedly putting a stop to the left’s misguided use of the courts as some sort of “unelected super-legislature,” and thus return the Supreme Court to its proper role in our government. In other words, in spite of what Senator Collins implied, Justice Kavanaugh cannot be a clone of Anthony Kennedy.

What’s more, a conservative court—one that is dedicated to “conserving” an originalist (read: “proper”) view of the Constitution—should indeed reverse much of what the left has achieved via rogue federal courts. This certainly includes, but is by no means limited to, nationwide abortion on demand and a perverse legal redefinition of marriage.

Note that, while defending the legal right to kill children in the womb, those like Senator Collins often refer to Roe as “long-established precedent,” but while defending the legal right to same-sex “marriage,” they declare 2015’s Obergefell—a recent and precarious 5-4 ruling—as an “important landmark precedent.” Thus, either way, “precedent” rules the day.

Speaking of “precedent,” there is nothing with as much precedent as marriage being the union of one man and one woman for life. As I’ve often noted, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. As the first three chapters of Genesis reveal, before we were even aware of the preciousness of life—because there was no death—humans were made aware of what is marriage.

In spite of what Susan Collins would have us believe, when it came to legally redefining the oldest legal “precedent” in the history of humanity, liberals on the Supreme Court found it perfectly sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent because “five current justices believed” they were right, and history, the Bible, and long-established overwhelmingly popular human law was wrong.

One gets the feeling that those on the left view as “precedent” any opinion that sits well with a liberal worldview. This is because much of what modern liberalism holds dear was not achieved via the ballot box or through the legislatures, but through judicial tyranny. Winning elections and actually achieving law the way our founders intended has proven far too difficult for liberals and the party they own. Thus, the courts have long been a favorite tool of the modern left. It’s time for leftists to learn: what the courts giveth, the courts can taketh away.

No doubt this is why the behavior of those opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was so abhorrently evil. Not “crazy,” as so many have been quick to say, but evil. If you thought it was bad during the Kavanaugh confirmation, just wait until a 5-4 decision overturns Roe or Obergefell.

Nevertheless, the courts should be above such intimidation and fear. Jurists dedicated to a constitutional view of our laws cannot allow erroneous views of precedent, the courts, law, and the Constitution to prevail because of how those on the unhinged left might react.

It is sometimes said that “politics is downstream from culture.” Others insist that such a view is “profoundly mistaken,” because “politics is a part of culture.” Whatever the case, our courts should be as free as possible (because judges are human beings, the courts will never be completely blind to politics or culture) from influence by political or cultural forces. Otherwise we end up with such absurd notions as a “living Constitution” and the law is whatever a five-vote majority on the highest court in the land says it is.

As the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia—who repeatedly stood against such nonsense—said, “the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document…(it) is an enduring document but not a ‘living’ one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.”

Conservatives like myself have long waited for this to be the prevailing view of the highest court in our land. With the confirmation and swearing in of Justice Kavanaugh, it is time for the conservatives on the Supreme Court to deliver.

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

Sunday, September 30, 2018

On Kavanaugh, for Democrats It’s Always Been Delay and Destroy

Counting today (Sunday, September 30) it’s been 84 days since Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those on the current Supreme Court, the average time for Senate confirmation was 67 days. From 1967 to 2010, the median time for confirmation was 69 days. Going all the back to the beginning of our nation, the average time for confirmation is 23 days. In spite of what some have implied—hoping to encourage even further investigation of a 36+ year-old supposed assault involving teenagers—there’s been no “rush” to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite.

All along the name of the game for democrats in this whole fiasco has been DELAY and DESTROY! Lindsey Graham was exactly right, the democrats want to destroy Judge Kavanaugh, hold the seat open, and hope they can fill it in 2020. The democrats didn’t really want an FBI investigation. If they did, it would’ve happened weeks ago, prior to Judge Kavanaugh’s first appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They didn’t really want one, because almost certainly they knew where it would lead: nowhere.

Again, democrats want further delays so they can hurl more lies. And an evil and eager media will almost certainly aid and abet. With this extra time that the latest investigation (that makes seven) into his life allows, if liberals continue to assault Judge Kavanaugh and his family with their ugly lies, Senator Jeff Flake will be an accomplice.

Flake—after a confrontation in an elevator with those who have no qualms about assaulting the unborn, and after a conversation with those bent on destroying a good man in the name of assaulting girls in the womb—decided that we needed to drag the ugly circus that is Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation out even longer.

The elevator confrontation preceded Flake’s conversation with Democrat Senator Chris Coons, which led to this new “investigation” of Ford’s uncorroborated accusation of a 36+ year-old assault. In the elevator, two women—Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher—screamed at Flake:
Archila screamed, “What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit on the Supreme Court. This is not tolerable. You have children in your family. Think about them. I have two children. I cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?”

Gallagher added, “I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me. I didn't tell anyone and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what you are telling all women in America, that they don’t matter. They should just keep it to themselves because if they have told the truth you’re just going to help that man to power anyway.”
Flake appeared totally surprised and scared to death, and had no words for the two women whose whole verbal assault was premised on a lie. (Thus, why should we assume either woman was telling the truth about their own lives—falsus in uno, falsus in omnibusright Senator Blumenthal?) Any conservative politician of Flake’s experience who has no sound answer for such “nasty” attacks should get out of the game (as Flake is doing).

Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence Brett Kavanaugh “violated” or “assaulted” anyone! Thus support of Judge Kavanaugh in no way implies anything untoward about women and sexual assault or any other such wickedness.

Again, this confrontation was little more than a miniature version of a “nasty” woman’s protest. Yet Senator Flake couldn’t or wouldn’t see it for what is was. Just after Trump’s inauguration, I told the GOP to gird themselves for this fight. It seems Senator Flake was not ready for what many of us knew was coming.

After President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, in early 2017, Bloomberg reported that there were over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. who were organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, said, “We’ll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia.”

Ahh, again with “the narrative.” As I noted a few years ago, for liberals, it seems it’s always about the narrative. As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

This notion of ones’ own “truth” was trumpeted proudly by liberals who hailed Christine Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A smug Corey Booker told Judge Kavanaugh, “She came forward. She sat here. She told her truth.” A “hyper-partisan” Kirsten Gillibrand told MSNBC,
Well, I think Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony was incredible. I thought she was so heartfelt. She spoke her truth so passionately, with such candor; with such emotion, I was really inspired by what she did today.
There is no “her truth” or “his truth” or “your truth” or “my truth.” There is only the truth. Sadly, most liberals today long ago abandoned such a notion, which is why we’ve had to endure this evil circus that is the Senate confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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