Our Books

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing one of our books (as low as $2.99). Click here to visit our Amazon page.

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

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 (for the current year; links to previous years archives at the bottom of each page)---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Saturday, August 8, 2020

7-Year-Old Boy in Georgia Died "from COVID-19"? Media Leaving Out Key Details

Update: The AJC is now reporting that, 

An initial investigation suggests that the 7-year-old Savannah boy listed as the youngest Georgian to die from coronavirus had a fever-fueled seizure while in the bathtub and drowned, a local official told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Chatham County Coroner Bill Wessinger confirmed previous reports from Savannah media regarding the boy’s death, which was included in the state’s daily coronavirus report on Thursday. ...

Wessinger cautioned that the full results of a Georgia Bureau of Investigation autopsy are still pending and may be a long time coming. But he said preliminary investigation suggests COVID-19 gave the boy a fever, which triggered a seizure that happened to occur while he was bathing.

Febrile seizures are not uncommon in young children and can be brought on by a number of illnesses and infections. 

In other words, though the left-wing AJC has gotten around to reporting more of the important details of this boys death, we still dont really know why he had a seizure. We do know that the combination of the seizure and the bath/shower is what caused his death. The fact that he tested positive for the Wuhan virus post-death may mean nothing at all. After all, false positives on these test have been widespread. And even if he had the Wuhan virus, it certainly doesn’t mean that he died “from” the Wuhan virus. 

The Savannah media story (see herementioned above again reveals (as if we needed another reminder) why the “seven year-old Georgia boy died from the coronavirus” meme is prevailing. Their story on this tragedy begins, 

After a 7-year-old Chatham County boy was reported as Georgia’s youngest COVID-19 casualty Thursday, local medical leaders and community members are appealing to the public to regard this loss as evidence of the pandemic’s ongoing threat.

No single death should be used as evidence for the ongoing threat” of a pandemic, and the death of a child should never be used for political purposes. Shame on the Trump-hating left for using this tragedy in an evil attempt to keep us in lockdown mode!

Original Post:

It has been widely reported in the last several days that, sometime within the past 10 days to two weeks, a seven year-old boy from Chatham County (the Savannah area), Georgia has died “from COVID-19.” If the media didn’t say that the child died “from COVID-19” they reported that he diedof COVID-19” or “of coronavirus.”

Even Fox News declared, “A 7-year-old old boy from Savannah, Ga., with no underlying conditions, became the youngest victim to die from the coronavirus…” (Emphasis mine.) Also, like Fox News, virtually all of the media also repeatedly reported that the child had “no underlying conditions.” Even my local radio station—repeating the deception every 30 minutes for hours on end—which, among other conservative programming, carries The Rush Limbaugh Show, helped perpetuate this latest example of Wuhan virus “fear porn.”

The AP—whose storied are often widely distributed in the media—did more accurately report that the boy died “with COVID-19.” However, the AP did go on to say, “The boy had no other chronic health conditions, according to data released by the state. …The boy’s death comes amid nationwide debate about the risks that children face in getting infected or spreading the coronavirus, particularly as the school year begins.”

Of course, the implication is that schools should not reopen, fall sports should not be played, and that America must remain in shutdown mode. If not for our own sakes, we must do it “for the children!” As is often the case with so many things when it comes to the Wuhan virus and the drive-by media, few things could be further from the truth.

As of late Friday evening, except for one Savannah TV station—whose more accurate account I first found via Facebook—I could find no drive-by media telling the whole story on this tragic episode. WTOC reporter Cyreia Sandlin provides some crucial details on the seven year-old’s death that the vast majority of the media has so far ignored:

So it seems that the boy died, not “from COVID-19,” but rather as the result of a seizure and a fall in the shower. It seems that, prior to his death, the child had zero Wuhan virus symptoms, and that after he was pronounced dead, “a rapid test showed evidence of COVID-19 positivity.”

I don’t know about you, but I’ve followed the news and the science on this virus as closely as most anyone, and I have yet to hear any reports of the Wuhan virus causing seizures. If this were the case—especially where children are concerned—it is a virtual guarantee that the media would have daily told us so. It would seem that fair and accurate reporting of this incident would include all of the circumstances surrounding this terrible tragedy, and that this is almost certainly another example of someone dying with the Wuhan virusif even thatand not from it.

All the media has done here is give us another reason not to trust them in this grave matter.

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

Big Tech Forgets Its Foundations (Capitalism and Conservatism)

In 2017, Mark Zuckerberg gave the commencement address at Harvard. As was noted at the time, Mr. Zuckerberg’s speech was laden with socialistic talking points. I wondered then, would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2017 have started Facebook? Likewise, would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2004—who was instrumental in building the world’s largest, most popular social networking website in the world—have given the 2017 commencement address at Harvard University?

In other words, how could a man who led the development of one of the world’s leading technology companies give a speech that touts principles that run completely contrary to what is necessary to build such a company? Tragically, as recent events have made clear, Mr. Zuckerberg is far from alone.

“TheFacebook” was launched in February of 2004. While Zuckerberg wrote the code for what would later become “Facebook,” the company never would’ve become the technology behemoth that it is today without a wide array of—gasp!—venture capitalists. In the summer of 2004, Peter Thiel—co-founder of, among other things, PayPal—made a $500,000 start-up investment into Facebook. Thiel was Facebook’s first outside investor.

With over two million users, by the spring of 2005 Facebook was valued at nearly $100 million. At that time, American venture capitalist firm Accel made a $12.7 million investment in Facebook. After Facebook went public in early 2012, Accel was listed as the second biggest—behind Zuckerberg—stakeholder in Facebook.

Almost exactly a year after Accel’s initial investment, a second round of funding was acquired. This time, several venture capitalists put up over $27 million. Thiel and Accel also provided additional investments. Such capitalists made Zuckerberg into a millionaire. According to The Guardian, “In 2008, Zuckerberg aged just 23, was named the youngest ever self-made millionaire by Forbes.” This was thanks in large part to American capitalists and capitalism.

According to Investopedia, as of June, 2020, after Zuckerberg, the next four largest shareholders in Facebook are all investment management companies—i.e., capitalists—such as Vanguard and T. Rowe Price. Facebook has created numerous millionaires and multiple billionaires. Almost all of this is the result of revenue generated from advertising—from companies like Panasonic and Microsoft (both early advertisers). You know, companies that sell us things—in other words, companies that engage in capitalism.

Of course, Facebook is far from alone when it comes to modern technology companies that owe their rise to capitalism. Google was officially incorporated in a garage in Menlo Park, California in September of 1998. Less than a year later, in June of 1999, venture capitalist rivals Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Sequoia Capital together made the first large (nearly $25 million) investment in the young company. Initially, Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin opposed the idea of an advertisement-funded search engine. According to Planet Google, “In an April 1998 academic paper prepared when [Page and Brin] were still students, they criticized ‘advertising funded search engines,’ which they believed would be ‘inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.’”

Nevertheless, in an effort to monetize their work—something that capitalism demands—in the year 2000, Google began selling ads that were associated with search keywords. The advertising of products—of course which leads to people buying things, sometimes referred to as “capitalism”—has been very good to Google. Again, according to Investopedia, “The bulk of Google’s 162 billion dollar revenue in 2019 came from its proprietary advertising service, Google Ads.”

In an effort to (gasp!) capitalize on the explosion of the internet, in 1994, Jeff Bezos left the Wall Street firm where he was employed and started—also in a garage—an online bookstore that would soon be known as Amazon. According to Amazon.com, Inc. History,
After reading a report that projected annual Web growth at 2,300 percent, Bezos drew up a list of 20 products that could be sold on the Internet. He narrowed the list to what he felt were the five most promising: compact discs, computer hardware, computer software, videos, and books. Bezos eventually decided that his venture would sell books over the Web, due to the large worldwide market for literature, the low price that could be offered for books, and the tremendous selection of titles that were available in print.
Of course, selling books was only the beginning. Amazon now sells almost anything that can be purchased. It is an “Everything Store.” In other words, Jeff Bezos saw the awesome opportunity the internet provided to sell things, and he led the creation of one of the world’s largest companies built on that principle.

To get the company up and running, in 1994 Bezos began pitching his idea to several dozen family, friends, and other investors. He hoped to raise around $1 million. About 20 agreed to invest and just over $980k was raised. In 1995, Amazon got $8 million from venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers—who, as noted above, were also early investors in Google.

How do you think Mr. Bezos got those first 20-something investors to write him checks? What was the lure? Of course, like everyone else starting a business and looking for investors—whether behemoths like Amazon, Facebook, and Google, or a small, single-location restaurant in your hometown—no doubt what got people to buy in was the hope of a return on their investment.

The idea that private citizens can freely start, own, invest in, or otherwise make money from a business is the essence of capitalism and is (or is supposed to be) as American as apple pie. As author W. Cleon Skousen points outs, the U.S. was the first nation on earth of any size or consequence “to undertake the structuring of a whole national economy on the basis of natural law and the free-market concept described by Adam Smith.”

Called the “Founding Father” of capitalism, Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations—more commonly known as The Wealth of Nations—is one of the most important literary works in the history of humanity. A collection of five books, The Wealth of Nations is widely considered the world’s earliest, most comprehensive defense of a free-market economy.

As is noted in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, would have an almost immediate impact on government financial policy—especially in the U.S.—and is considered by many to be the most important treatise on economics ever written. Writing to John Norvell in 1807, Thomas Jefferson said that on “the subjects of money & commerce, Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book to be read.”

If conservatism seeks to conserve anything, it is those things that have been settled for all time. As history has clearly demonstrated, no economic system has proven better than the free-market economics touted by Smith and embraced by America’s Founding Fathers, the free-market economics that allowed for the creation of Amazon, Facebook, Google, and the like. Thus, if conservatism seeks to conserve anything, it is capitalism.

On the contrary, the American left and the modern Democrat Party seek to destroy capitalism in America. Led by the likes of Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this is especially true of younger democrats. The Democrat Party has gone so far left that democrats now significantly prefer socialism to capitalism. More than three-fourths of democrats say that they would vote for a socialist for President of the United States.

Likewise, in spite of the fact that their companies were built on, and their fortunes were made because of, capitalism, and in spite of the fact that conservatism is the political philosophy that embraces, promotes, and protects capitalism in America, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Jeff Bezos time and again demonstrate that they are, if not openly devoted to leftism and the Democrat party, typically very hostile to conservatives and conservative principles.

Thus, we again see that—after having employed and personally benefitted from the forces of capitalism, and thus, conservatism—Big Tech leftists have hypocritically decided that what worked for them is simply not for everyone else. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Ignore the Battleground Polls As Well

It seems that President Trump is trailing in the polls again. In other “shocking” news, it seems that only women menstruate; “green energy” is a massive scam; Trump-Russia collusion was a massive hoax; media leftists hate America; and on everything from masks, to guns, to lives that matter, liberals are hypocrites. As I noted back in January of this year, Americans—especially Trump supporters—should pay little to no attention to the national polls on the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.

Again, such polls are usually not designed to inform us—as they should—but rather to form public opinion. This is true of the polls in the so-called “battleground” states as well. Again, 2016 provides the valuable lesson here.

People define battleground states differently. For purposes of this piece, I’ll define a “battleground state” as a state that was won—by either Trump or Hillary—in 2016 by less than 5 percentage points. There were eleven such states in 2016. Six were won by President Trump (margin of victory in the parentheses): North Carolina (3.66%), Arizona (3.55%), Florida (1.20%), Wisconsin (0.77%), Pennsylvania (0.72%), and Michigan (.23%). Five were won by Hillary: Colorado (4.91%), Maine (2.96%), Nevada (2.42%), Minnesota (1.52 %), and New Hampshire (0.37%).

Going into the 2016 election, according to the Real Clear Politics (RCP) polling average, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump in seven out of 11 battleground states (Hillary’s RCP polling average lead in parentheses): WI (6.5%), PA (2.1%), MI (3.6%), CO (3.0%), ME (5.5%), MN (6.3%), and NH (0.3%). In other words, Donald Trump won three of the battleground states—WI, PA, and MI—where he (supposedly) trailed significantly in polls done just days prior to the election. Additionally, whether he won the state or not, Trump outperformed the RCP polling average in seven out of 11 battleground states. He did so by an average margin of 3.5 %.

However, since the RCP average is typically only the handful of polls just prior to the election—which are often, and “amazingly!” (hear my sarcasm) more accurate—it is more informative to examine the polls months prior to the election. After all, these are the ones that are used in the nefarious attempts to shape public opinion. Let’s look at the battleground polls that were done almost exactly four years ago, in July and August of 2016.

In the July-August polls reported by RCP, Hillary had a polling average lead in all but one (AZ) of the 11 battleground states. The numbers in parentheses are her average lead at the time: NC (2.2%), FL (1.9%), WI (6.8%), PA (6.1%), MI (6.9 %), CO (8.6%), ME (only a single poll: 10%), NV (0.8%), MN (RCP reports only seven polls in 2016. The average Hillary lead: 7.0%.), and NH (9.3%). In the final 2016 election result, Trump outperformed every one of these polling averages except one (NV). He did so by an average of 6.2%.

According to the RCP polling, currently, Joe Biden leads President Trump in every battleground state poll average (Biden’s lead in parentheses): NC (2.0%), AZ (2.8%), FL (7.0%), WI (6.0%), PA (7.3%), MI (8.0%), CO (only a single poll: 10.0%), ME (10.3%), NV (4.0%), MN (11.4%), and NH (4.3%). Note how similar these results are to the 2016 numbers.

It is also worth noting that today’s media is much more afraid of a second term for President Trump than they were of a potential first term for then candidate Donald Trump. This is why, along with their polling games, we had to endure years of a Trump-Russia-collusion hoax, are bombarded daily with Wuhan virus case counts—which are about as meaningless as the presidential polls—told that we must remain in some form of shutdown mode, and are nightly exposed to scenes of riots and destruction.

Democrats in 2016 thought Donald Trump was a joke and Hillary was a shoo-in. Having seen what he’s capable of accomplishing, even in the face of unprecedented opposition, democrats in 2020 are terrified of giving Donald Trump four more years. Thus, the portrayal of near-constant chaos across America.

In other words, all in the name of getting rid of President Trump, Democrats and their like-minded allies in the media are invested in the continued suffering of Americans. As Tucker Carlson recently put it,

Democrats understand that the unhappier Americans become, the more likely they are to win. Unhappy people want change. It is not complicated. So, every ominous headline about the state of the country makes it more likely that Donald Trump will lose his job. The more that people suffer, the greater Joe Biden’s advantage. Democrats have a strong incentive, therefore, to inflict as much pain as they can, and that’s what they are doing.

Instead of laying the blame where it belongs—the Chinese own the Wuhan virus; democrats own the violent, crime-ridden, riotous cities; the media and the democrats own the Trump-Russia-collusion hoax—the media continuously points their crooked finger at President Trump and constantly attempts to blame him and his administration for virtually all that they perceive is wrong in America. Whether true or not, the polls—whether national or state—are meant to sell the notion that most of the voting public is buying what the leftist media is selling.

And so what if the polls are wrong now? What have the drive-by media to lose? If Biden wins, they will have succeeded. If Trump wins, they can tell themselves, “At least we tried.” Their polls months out from the election in 2020 look no worse than they did in 2016, and however the election turns out, the drive-bys—seemingly never undeterred by failed wrong-doings—will move on to their next evil assignment.

Last, if, like me, you’re a Trump supporter, let none of this discourage you. In fact, let it motivate you, as it does me. I’ve never been more enthusiastic about voting for Trump as President of the United States. In 2016, my vote for Trump was more of a vote against Hillary. That’s not the case this year. And every bogus poll, every media lie, every ignorant mask mandate (take note, corporate America), every business closed, every park closed, every school shut down, every statue torn down, every conservative cancelled, every knee bowed at our National Anthem, every hateful, violent act toward our police, and all other such garbage, only further motivates me to cast my ballot for Donald J. Trump!

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Cancel New York (UPDATED)

UPDATE: According to Michael Goodwin at The New York Post, “The family that owns The New York Times were slaveholders.” Mr. Goodwin writes,

It’s far worse than I thought. In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.

Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery. She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.

I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha’s family fought for secession.

Adolph Ochs’ own “Southern sympathies” were reflected in the content of the Chattanooga Times, the first newspaper he owned, and then The New York Times. The latter published an editorial in 1900 saying the Democratic Party, which Ochs supported, “may justly insist that the evils of negro suffrage were wantonly inflicted on them.”

Six years later, the Times published a glowing profile of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the 100th anniversary of his birth, calling him “the great Southern leader.”

Ochs reportedly made contributions to rebel memorials, including $1,000 to the enormous Stone Mountain Memorial in Georgia that celebrates Davis, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. He made the donation in 1924 so his mother, who died 16 years earlier, could be on the founders’ roll, adding in a letter that “Robert E. Lee was her idol.”

In the years before his death in 1931, Ochs’ brother George was simultaneously an officer of The New York Times Company and a leader of the New York Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The rest of Goodwin’s piece is a worthy read. And thus, it seems that my call to “cancel New York,” is even more valid than I first thought. Again, at least according to the standards” the modern left has established. 


When I say “cancel New York,” I mean every bit of it, including the state of New York, New York City, the New York Yankees, the New York Mets, the New York Giants, the New York Jets, and, of course, The New York Times. This is the only way to satisfy the standards already clearly established by the foolish cancel culture that currently plagues the U.S.

In fact, according to cancel culture standards, New York should have been cancelled years ago. As a Thomas Phippen—associate editor at the Daily Caller—piece put it in 2017, “New York Is Named After A Horrendous Slave Trader.” Mr. Phippen wrote,

New York, both the city and the state, is named after the house of York and particularly for James Stuart, then Duke of York, one of the most successful slavers in colonial American history…

James Stuart conquered the settlements between the Delaware and the Connecticut rivers from the Dutch in 1664, and the name of the principal port, New Amsterdam, was promptly changed to honor the new master. James’ brother, King Charles II of England, gave the territory to the duke in exchange for four beaver pelts annually.

The Duke of York, who later became King James II of England (and James VII of Scotland), created Britain’s greatest slave empire known as the Royal African Company, which transported between 90,000 and 100,000 African slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies between 1672 and 1689.

As Phippen also noted, according to Sir Hilary Beckles, the current vice-chancellor of the University of the West Indies, after establishing ports along Africa’s Gold Coast, the Royal African Company “soon became the largest single company involved in the slave trade. Between 1680 and 1700 it supplied some 30,000 Africans to the Caribbean.” Beckles adds that, “Slaves purchased for the Royal African Company of England were branded ‘DY,’ Duke of York, after the president of the company.”

According to a 2005 article in The Nation, in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, slavery was so profitable in the New York area that by 1703, 42 percent of New York households had slaves. Among early colonial American cities, this rate of slave ownership was second only to Charleston, South Carolina. In 2012, writing in the Huffington Post, Alan Singer noted that “Slavery was such a big part of early New York that during the colonial era one in five people living in New York was an enslaved African.”

Mr. Singer also revealed that,

The fact is that New York’s first City Hall was built with slave labor. The first Congress passed the Bill of Rights there and George Washington gave his inaugural speech there. Slaves helped build the wall that Wall Street is named for.

Business Insider notes that—along with Harvard Law School and Georgetown University, which, of course, are not in New York, but, based on current “standards,” also well deserve cancellation—multiple New York landmarks were built by slaves. What’s more, dozens of New York City streets are named for citizens who were prominent slaveholders or slave traders.

The New York Yankees—according to Forbes, the second most valuable sports franchise in the world—has a long history of engaging in real “systemic racism.” As David Marcus of The Federalist noted last year, “The Yankees systematically denied qualified black baseball players the right to make a good living for more than half a century.”

While pointing out the absurdity and the hypocrisy of cancelling Kate Smith and her seminal “God Bless America,” Marcus mockingly adds,

I am deeply offended by the fact that the New York Yankees refused to field a black player for the first half of the 20th century. Don’t tell me that’s just how it was. Don’t tell me it was the rule. Branch Rickey and the Brooklyn Dodgers had the courage to break that rule in the 1940s, well before the beloved Yankees did. How can this be forgiven?

Of course liberals are quick to forgive—or at least forget—when the cancel culture might actually cost them something that they care about. This is why the Yankees remain—well, I guess they’re still out there somewhere, while the leftists running their league still pretend the Wuhan virus is a real danger—and Kate Smith had to go. As Marcus points out, this is just another example of the “empty virtue signaling” that American leftists are all too comfortable with.

Such “empty virtue signaling,” or cancel culture hypocrisy, is currently on full display all across the U.S., with liberals like those who dominate the media, politics, and culture of New York City leading the way. Their venom has fueled an ignorant rage that, not only has cost people their jobs, but has resulted in widespread death and destruction across the U.S.

As resigning New York Times opinion columnist and editor Bari Weiss put it, this “venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.” For example, when it comes to black lives, the “proper targets” are white cops. Never mind that the vast majority of black Americans who are violently killed are murdered by those who share their skin color, and that this almost always happens in U.S. cities where liberal (democrat) politics and worldview have dominated for decades.

Of course, democrats have long dominated New York politics, which is another reason for cancelling New York. Nothing in the history of the United States has a more racist past than the Democrat Party. As I note in The Miracle and Magnificence of America,

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 agenda was clear. Every party platform since the creation of the Republican Party had forcefully denounced slavery. 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.

For six consecutive party platforms—from 1840 through 1860—the Democrat Party defended and promoted the evil institution of slavery in the United States.

Clearly, if one looks hard and far enough, the history of New York is as racist as any other part of America that one might want to cancel. Thus, according to the "standards" of today's left, it is time for New York—and all institutions that share that name—to go the way of all those Confederate statues. Now, if you are part of this cancel culture that is currently sweeping the U.S. but you are not for cancelling New York, you are clearly a hypocrite. If New York, in spite of its history and the history of its namesake, is allowed to stay, then virtually everything else in America targeted by the cancel culture should be left alone as well.

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, July 10, 2020

What “Systemic Liberalism” Has Wrought

After another weekend of violence in Atlanta—where nearly three dozen were shot and five were killed, including an eight-year-old girl—Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said “enough is enough.” However, because her worldview is corrupted by modern liberalism—which is the case with the leadership in virtually every major U.S. city—she offered no real solutions for the recent epidemic of violence that plagues Atlanta.

As has been widely reported, Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp stepped in and ordered the activation of 1,000 National Guard troops in order to “protect state property and patrol” the streets of Atlanta. In his statement, Kemp declared,

Peaceful protests were hijacked by criminals with a dangerous, destructive agenda. Now, innocent Georgians are being targeted, shot, and left for dead. This lawlessness must be stopped and order restored in our capital city. I have declared a State of Emergency and called up the Georgia Guard because the safety of our citizens comes first. This measure will allow troops to protect state property and dispatch state law enforcement officers to patrol our streets. Enough with the tough talk. We must protect the lives and livelihoods of all Georgians.

Part of the problem in Atlanta—again, like we now see in so many large, Democrat-led U.S. cities—is plummeting police morale. After the death of George Floyd, and the unjust and incorrect accusations of “systemic racism” throughout America, police all over the U.S. were made into scapegoats for what really plagues the urban areas of America. As a result, police officers have been targeted for violence and mayhem simply for wearing their uniforms and doing their jobs.

In addition, police officers have been targeted—and unjustly fired—by their superiors. This has been the case in Atlanta. As a result, a recent wave of “blue flu” has swept through the Atlanta Police Department. Almost certainly, this means dangerous areas of Atlanta are not seeing the usual police presence. Thus the need for the Georgia National Guard.

And thus we see again the sad, sorry results of the “Ferguson Effect.” The “Ferguson Effect,” a phrase coined by Heather MacDonald, says that, when police stop, or reduce, policing—because of political pressure, community pressure, department policies, and the like—criminals are emboldened and crime increases.

Because of democrats’ relentless and dishonest campaign against law enforcement, the Ferguson Effect has led to numerous U.S. cities becoming significantly more dangerous. As John Nolte put it several years ago, “The obvious and predictable result is a rise in violent crime that only hurts predominantly poor, black, inner-city neighborhoods.” Of course, the magnificently foolish calls to “defund the police” or “abolish the police” (as some school districts are now doing) will only ensure that the Ferguson Effect will continue and will result in even more death and destruction in America’s urban areas.

Whatever one’s politics on these matters, one question that often is ignored when it comes to policing and America’s cities is, why do the urban areas of America require more policing in the first place? Why is it that certain parts of America—whether cities, towns, or schools—require very little policing and see almost no crime (certainly little to no violent crime)? I believe the answer is quite simple: Wherever one sees intact, God-fearing families—families with a married mother and father who regularly attend religious services—crime is virtually non-existent.

Of course, sound morality has long revealed this to be the case, but, if you require it, multiple studies have also shown that children raised by a married mother and father are better citizens; e.g., less likely to commit crimes, more likely to perform well in school, and so on. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that religious Americans are more involved with their families, less likely to divorce, do better financially, are more likely to donate their time and other resources to their communities, and are happier and healthier than their non-religious counterparts.

Modern liberalism’s war on the family and faith has been particularly devastating to fathers, and this has been particularly devastating to America’s youth and the communities that must deal with the consequences of fatherless children. Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. 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.

Additionally, fatherlessness is the single greatest cause of poverty in the U.S. As Robert Rector pointed out years ago, “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.” In order to further their big government agenda, modern liberals often point to education as the answer to poverty in America. However, marriage is a far better weapon against poverty than is education. Again, as Rector points out, “being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.” In addition, a child living in a single-parent home in which the parent is a college graduate is nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as a child living with their married parents whose highest level of education is completing high school.

Marriage provides the safest environment for children. In addition to being much more likely to live in crime-ridden communities, children born to single moms face much more danger inside the home than do children living with their married parents. As marripedia points out:

  • The rate of physical abuse is 3 times higher in the single parent family.
  • The rate of physical abuse is 4 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with the child’s biological father (unmarried).
  • The rate of physical abuse is 5 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
  • The rate of physical abuse is 10 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

The rates for sexual abuse are even worse than physical abuse:

  • The rate of sexual abuse is 5 times higher in the single parent family and when both biological parents are cohabiting (i.e., unmarried).
  • The rate of sexual abuse is 8.6 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
  • The rate of sexual abuse is 20 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

As tragic as the outcomes of the Ferguson Effect are, the “Fatherless Effect” is much more wide-ranging, common, and deadly in American society. Of course, systemic liberalism is responsible for both. If today’s liberals have “accomplished” anything, they have given us the destruction of the biblical family model and the removal of God from virtually every public institution in America. No amount of policing, no number of soldiers can make up for either. And neither can the racist, Marxist Black Lives Matter organization—or any of their like-minded ilk.

If America wants our city streets to be safe, if we want our communities and schools to function properly, we must abandon the “principles” of modern liberalism and fix our homes and our hearts. To do that, we must look to the One who made us and what His Word says in all of these matters.

(See this column at American Thinker.) 

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America