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:

Friday, December 28, 2012

Here I Go Again: Correcting a Darwinist (Scharnagel)

Sigh. I can’t believe that I must do this again. Jim Scharnagel recently responded to my last column (Answering Liberal’s ‘Gotcha’ Questions). In attempting to “correct” me, he makes a very common mistake when it comes to Darwinian evolution that no seasoned Darwinist (I think he would consider himself one) should EVER make.

Mr. Scharnagel states that “Techniques such as carbon dating have proven dinosaurs lived 265 to 65 million years ago, and remains of our ancestors have been unearthed dating back to 6 or 7 million years.” As I have noted often before, carbon-14 dating CANNOT date objects to be millions of years old. Because of the rate of decay of carbon, it can only date objects to thousands of years—at best a few ten-thousands of years.

He then asks, “How else could you account for all those ancient fossils?” How about a global flood? (“Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.”)

He also asks some other very good questions: “How could two people produce today’s population of more than 7 billion people in 9,000 or so years? Where did Cain and Seth get wives? How could Noah get all the Earth’s terrestrial animals into his tiny ark for 40 days and nights? And what about the plants?”

Some answers (from Genesis!)

On billions of people in thousands of years:

On how all the animals fit on the ark:

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Confronting Christmas

As godless secularism becomes more and more entrenched in our culture, the Christmas season is one of the most contentious times in our calendar. Every year there are stories in the news of banned Christmas trees, or of Christmas trees renamed “Holiday trees.” Christmas concerts at public schools draw threats of a lawsuit (even when the poor in Africa are the beneficiaries!), and U.S. Congressmen are barred from wishing their constituents a “Merry Christmas” in their official mailings. This year, even Charlie Brown is creating controversy.

Actually, when it comes to A Charlie Brown Christmas, there was controversy from the beginning. In 1965, just as the culture wars were heating up in the U.S., the “enlightened” executives at CBS balked at the Peanuts classic containing Bible passages. Most every American has heard Linus, in teaching Charlie Brown the true meaning of Christmas, perfectly recite the King James Version of Luke 2:8-14. Of course, the Scripture reference is what was “controversial.”

Charles Schulz, the creator of Peanuts (the most popular and influential comic strip of all time), was insistent. As Lee Habeeb of National Review puts it, “[Schulz] knew that the Luke reading by Linus was the heart and soul of the story.”

Today children (and adults) are bombarded with deceptive (but alluring) messages about “Christmas Spirit” and how Christmas is about “spreading joy throughout the world,” and “a time for warmth and brotherly love” (as a recent TV cartoon declared). Even Dickens’ iconic A Christmas Carol is bereft of the complete message of Christmas.

Of course, brotherly love and spreading joy are not bad things, but they are far from the “heart and soul” of Christmas. Schulz was right. The “heart and soul” of any Christmas story is “[B]ehold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.”

Or, as C.S. Lewis put it, Christmas is the story of how “the rightful King has landed.” Just prior to His death, as Jesus stood before the Roman governor Pilate, Pilate asked Him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” After some discussion Pilate concludes to Jesus, “You are a king, then!” Jesus answered him saying, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world…”

So Christmas is a celebration of the birth of our Savior King. “Hark! The herald angels sing; glory to the newborn King!” This is the reason for the all of the conflict and contention when it comes to Christmas time. This is why so many fear a Nativity scene, a Christmas tree, or even a meek “Merry Christmas.”

Who wants to be confronted with the idea that maybe they are ignoring the most significant event in human history? Who wants to be reminded that perhaps Jesus Christ really was (and is) a King?

And He’s not just any king, but a king with a holy mission. “Amazing love, how can it be, that you my King would die for me?” Jesus was the Christ, the “Messiah,” the “Anointed One.” As the angel reported to the shepherds, “today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you…” Jesus was a king who was born to die—not only to die, but to rise again and rule forever.

His death was to “redeem” us and to serve as “atonement” for us. Jesus came into the world so that the world, through Him, “might be saved.” And on the third day after his death, our King, born in a stable, conquered even death so that we could live forever with Him.

When Christians truly celebrate Christmas, we celebrate not just a birthday, but the beginning of a sequence of events that would change the world forever. He was born, He lived, He died, He arose, and now He is preparing a place for all of those who would believe in Him. Just as sure as all of the other events took place, we who celebrate Christmas look forward to His return and we will celebrate for all eternity.

Just before handing Jesus over for crucifixion, Pilate asked the crowd, “What shall I do, then, with Jesus…?” That is the ultimate question that each of us must answer, and Christmas provides us with the beginning of the answer.

Have a truly Merry Christmas.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Saturday, December 15, 2012

People Killing People

The greatest fear for any parent worth anything is the fear of their child preceding them in death—especially a young child. When we hear of such a tragedy, like what occurred yesterday in Newtown CT, we often say “I can’t imagine.” The terrifying reality for parents is that, we can imagine. We look at our own children and think of what those other poor parents are suffering through and wonder how we would handle it if it were our tragedy. I don’t know and I don’t want to know.
What I do know is that, whatever means that the enemy uses to perpetrate such destruction, no amount of political effort can change a human heart. Of course, this doesn’t mean that lawmakers and laws don’t play a role in keeping us safe. However, as I noted after the November 6th election, for things to really change in America, we need a spiritual awakening. We need true revival. Then the politics will take care of itself.
Isn’t it disgustingly ironic that liberals—Bloomberg, Menino, Piers Morgan, (MSNBC’s) Alex Wagner, et al—are screaming for more gun control after the death of 28 Americans, including 20 children, yet nearly 4,000 children a day are killed in the womb in the U.S., and liberals barely bat an eye. I wouldn’t for one second trust the motives and sympathies of someone when it comes to their concern for “gun control” when they refuse to act to act to protect the most innocent among us.
Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, December 14, 2012

Answering Liberals "Gotcha" Questions

As much as the establishment GOP would like for the “social” (I prefer “moral”) issues to go away, liberals simply won’t allow it. Contrary to popular belief, lately it has been liberals on offense when it comes to making the moral issues into campaign issues. How ironic is it that, when jobs and the economy are overwhelmingly the leading issue in a political campaign, liberals insist on debating the moral issues. Contrary to GOP establishment beliefs, this is not a bad thing.

Conservative Christians are on the side of the truth when it comes to abortion, same-sex marriage, evolution, and so on. We simply need candidates who truly believe our positions and can intelligently articulate them. When debating the moral issues, too many GOP candidates are simply pandering. Other conservatives have their hearts in the right place, but they are unable to communicate effectively their positions when put on the spot by liberals—whether their opponent or the media.

If your heart and your mind are not in this debate, serious mistakes can (and will) be made (ask Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock). I can’t change anyone’s heart, but I can provide some mental ammunition when it comes to debating the moral issues.

Thus, as a public service to conservative Christians everywhere, but especially to those running for public office, this column is a primer for how to answer those “gotcha” questions that any candidate opposing a liberal will inevitably have to answer.

First of all, on the question of rape and abortion, as Mike Adams of points out, one should use significant caution when discussing such matters. Next, I would advise an approach taken by Jesus Christ Himself. Often, when doubters were attempting to trap Jesus with their “gotcha” questions, to reveal their ignorance and hypocrisy, Christ responded with a question of His own.

There are several such questions with which to respond when asked why one does not support abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from rape.  For example, almost certainly the person urging a rape exception does not really believe in the exception.  As Adams also points out, “[i]n order for there to be an exception to a rule banning abortions, there has to be a rule banning abortions. That much is obvious. It is also obvious that pro-choicers do not merely want abortion to be available in cases of rape. They want it available in all cases.”

Thus, one should ask them: If I agree to the rape exception, would you then agree to ban abortion in all other cases? Also point out that there are literally thousands of people alive today who were born as a result of a rape. (A good idea would be to name a specific example.) Ask if it would be acceptable to kill that person because of the circumstances of his or her conception.

Another good question, as I pointed out months ago, would be: Instead of killing the innocent child in the womb, why not execute the rapist? A follow up would be: Do liberals (or others) who support abortion in cases of rape also support the execution of rapists? Perhaps the best question would be, why compound one evil deed with another? Rape is a horrific evil, but so is the taking of an innocent life.

On the issue of marriage, conservatives are often asked if they support same-sex marriage (or more sinisterly, a loaded question such as “Do you support marriage equality?”). The conservative response should be “No,” immediately followed by, “How would you discriminate and define marriage?”

Most liberals want to define marriage as a union between any two consenting adults. Of course, this ignores polygamy, polyandry, and other variations of multiples marrying. The point is (as I pointed out months ago), any definition of marriage is “discriminatory;” it just comes down to whose definition you want to use.

It should also be pointed out that, once same-sex marriage has legal recognition and protection, businesses, schools, churches, and so on could then face legal consequences if they “discriminate” against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage supporters should have to answer whether they would support such legal actions.

Then there is the dreaded, “How old do you think the earth is?” question. Once such a question is asked, any conservative worth his weight should seriously consider ending the interview/debate right then and there.

This question is nothing more than a blatant attempt by liberals and their apologists to paint conservatives as “religious nuts” or “anti-science bumblers.” As Paul Krugman of the New York Times put it after Marco Rubio was asked about the age of the earth, “Like striated rock beds that speak of deep time, his inability to acknowledge scientific evidence speaks of the anti-rational mind-set that has taken over his political party.”

Of course, what liberals are really trying to get at is whether their conservative target accepts Darwinian evolution (D.E.) as “the gospel” when it comes to how life began. Without billions of years, D.E. is as dead as a dinosaur fossil. This is why liberals are so committed to millions and billions of years. Thus, the conservative retort should aim to redirect back to D.E.

Use questions such as: do you really believe that humans, monkeys, elephants, antelopes, lions, lizards, apples, apricots, roses, and rhododendrons all have a common ancestor?  Do you believe that all life on earth came into being without a Creator? What does D.E. contribute to operational science today? (In other words, what is D.E., other than an attempt to explain our existence without a Creator?) If D.E. is so fundamental to science (as most evolutionists will claim), then why is it possible to reject completely D.E. and millions/billions of years and still operate perfectly well in any scientific field (including medicine)? And similarly, as Rubio put it, what does D.E. have to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States?

It would also be worth pointing out (as I did last year) that two of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler, both calculated the earth to be only a few thousand years old. Kepler calculated a creation date of 3992, and Newton firmly defended a creation date of about 4000 B.C.

The most important thing to remember when faced with difficult questions is that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and there is an Author of this truth. We will only get the right answers to the difficult questions when we allow ourselves to be guided by His wisdom. As Newton put it, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Introducing Choices Care Pregnancy Center

According to the research group Child Trends, as reported in the New York Times earlier this year, more than half of all American children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock. In addition to this, 41% of all births in the U.S. are out of wedlock. This includes 29% of white children born to unmarried mothers, along with 53% of Hispanics and 73% of black children. Of course, millions of such pregnancies end in abortion. Truly America is awash in what is commonly deemed “crisis pregnancies.”

Since the late 1960s, in an effort to respond to such pregnancies, and to serve as an alternative to abortion, the crisis pregnancy center movement began. There are now over 4,000 such centers in the United States. Since 1987, Gainesville has been blessed with such an operation.

Formerly known as the Gainesville Care Center, Choices Pregnancy Care Center (Choices) began with a full-time staff of one and an annual operating budget of just over $13,000. That first year, the Care Center offered pregnancy tests, provided maternity and baby clothing, and 15 volunteer client assistants ministered to 182 often young and very scared young ladies.

Today, Choices has a staff of 10 and the 2013 budget will be around $400,000. Choices has 45 female client advocates, 25 male client advocates, a nurse manager, and two volunteer sonographers. They offer a variety of programs and services which range from pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, to STD tests (for male and female), to post abortion recovery support (for male and female). They also educate clients on the “adoption option” and then refer them to Christian adoption agencies in the area.

In the 25 years of its existence, Choices has served over 30,000 clients. Over 1,100 children have been spared abortion as a result of their work. In the coming year, Choices will provide services to well over 1,000 individuals, female and male.

The vision for Choices Pregnancy Care Center came about in 1985. The “core group” then consisted of Don and Sylvia DeLozier, Jim and Ethel Boone, and Brad and Mary Dunagan. The doors opened in 1987 with Sylvia DeLozier serving as the executive director.

The current director, who has held the position for the last 20 years, is Ann Gainey. Many local churches, businesses, and individuals help support the center financially. Local nurses and physicians volunteer their time to serve at the center or on the board of directors.

As a recent press release indicated, in an effort to broaden its reach and appeal to more young women and men facing an untimely pregnancy, the 25-year-old Gainesville Care Center has changed its name to Choices Pregnancy Care Center (or simply “Choices”). “We are changing our name, but the heart of our mission and services remains focused on the tiny hearts that inspire us every day,” said Ann Gainey, the organization’s long-time executive director. “Our new name also is more descriptive and will help people better understand what we do.”

The name change was a carefully thought-out decision in which even an outside consultant was hired to help in the effort. The change was made to serve the targeted constituency more broadly. The previous name was sometimes confused with nursing homes and senior adult day-care centers.

Also, the decision to go with “Choices” is an effort to reclaim the word from the pro-abortion community. “We are hoping to reclaim the word ‘choice’ and help young men and women narrow down and eliminate the choices available to them when they are facing a tough decision,” said Choices officials.

Mrs. Gainey also noted that, “Another reason for the name change is the recent opening of a second location off Winder Highway in South Hall.” She added that, “Most importantly, we wanted to attract more area young women and men in need of pregnancy information as well as our many other services.”

Those who visit Choices looking for help are treated with respect, compassion, and care by the client advocates and administrative staff whose goal it is to show them the love of Jesus in real and practical ways. Call 770-535-1413, or visit to find out how you can be a part of this vital ministry in our community.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, November 23, 2012

Learning the Hard Way

Having four children 10 and under offers plenty of intimate, hands-on lessons on human nature. For example, sometimes, in spite of Michelle’s and my best efforts, good parental instruction is ignored and hard lessons have to be learned. I’m not talking about situations that lead to enforced discipline, but rather those that result in sad and tough natural consequences.

A good recent example for us is one that many families have experienced: the misplaced bike. What happens in this case is that the child not only fails to put away his bike properly, but leaves it in such a place that it is run over by the family car. Of course, much sadness and sorrow ensue, but this is also a great opportunity for learning.

A great biblical example of learning things the hard way is the parable of the lost son. In this story, Jesus described a father with two sons. The younger son approached his father and demanded his share of the estate. Shorty after this, the younger son took all he had and left for a distant land. There he “squandered his wealth in wild living.” After losing all he had and staring at starvation and poverty, the son “came to his senses,” repented of his sins, and humbly returned to his father.

I’m afraid that similar such hard lessons loom for this nation.

After winning on November 6, gloating liberals boldly declared, “The right has lost the culture war.” Who could blame them for such a conclusion? In spite of a weak economy and terrible employment numbers, Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history and the only sitting U.S. president to declare support for same-sex marriage, easily won reelection.

Harry Enten of the UK Guardian concluded that, “The 1990s culture wars were fought over many social issues that many on the right thought were being redefined from their traditional normals by progressive activists and the liberal media for the next generation. Three of the key points of contention were abortion, gay rights, and recreational drug use. The results from last Tuesday's election indicates that the right is losing the war on these three issues.”

In addition to Obama’s reelection, the results that form such thinking are as follows: For the first time ever, voters in U.S. states (Maine, Maryland, and Washington) approved same-sex marriage. Voters in two states (Colorado and Washington) passed ballot measures that allow for the recreational use of marijuana. Wisconsin elected America’s first openly gay U.S. senator. What’s more, the GOP lost two very winnable senate races (Indiana and Missouri) partly due to their candidates’ inability properly and intelligently to articulate the pro-life position when it comes to abortion in the rare case of pregnancy due to rape.

Liberals have also declared themselves the winners in the “class war.” Writing for New York magazine, Jonathan Chait noted that, “Like every president, Obama won for myriad reasons, important and petty. But his reelection was hardly small and hardly devoid of ideas. Indeed, it was entirely about a single idea. The campaign, from beginning to end, was an extended argument about economic class.”

In spite of the class warfare, as I noted just after the election, I’m convinced that millions of Americans voted for Obama, et al, for no other reason than for their support of legalized killing of children in the womb, and for their support of perverted (same-sex) marriage. Too many Americans want the social and legal approval of sex without consequences.

What liberals forget, or choose to ignore, is that even if such social and legal protections are achieved, this does not remove the tough natural consequences of immoral behavior. In other words, winning elections isn’t going to bring back a child killed in the womb or cure the many diseases that stem from illicit sexual activity.

Along with the loss of a life, the sad consequences of an abortion are myriad. According to National Right to Life, women having an abortion face more than a doubled risk of future sterility along with an increased risk of future miscarriages. Thirteen out of 17 studies in the U.S. reported an increase in breast cancer among women choosing abortion. Abortion has also been associated with cervical and ovarian cancer.  

Besides the physical trauma, many post-abortive women are doomed to a lifetime of guilt and pain, with common experiences such as depression, anxiety, self-hatred, loneliness, and hopelessness. A 1995 study revealed that women who have had an abortion are 89% more likely to abuse their other children.

Just as one can’t violently end a pregnancy without suffering some consequences, a culture can’t redefine the foundational institution of human society without suffering for it. (And remember, libs, ANY definition of marriage is discriminatory.) Even without same-sex marriage, the destruction of the traditional (biblical) family unit is already well underway.

The number of U.S. households headed by unmarried adults now outnumbers those led by married adults. Also, more than half of all American children born to women under 30 are born out of wedlock. In addition to this, 41% of all births in the U.S. are out of wedlock. This includes 29% of white children born to unmarried mothers, along with 53% of Hispanics and 73% of black children.

Of course, as I have noted before, the push for same-sex marriage has little to do with marriage. Marriage is just the means to a more sinister end for the homosexual movement. This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle that many Americans find immoral (and, as I have noted, dangerous).

Then there is the inevitable consequence of a nation living well beyond its means. Make no mistake about it, for far too many Americans, the primary function of the U.S. government is to provide income, food, housing, and health care. As Robert Samuelson recently reported, “In 2011, ‘payments for individuals’ including health care, constituted 65 percent of federal spending, up from 21 percent in 1955. That's the welfare state.”

Much in the media has been made recently of the “fiscal cliff” facing the U.S. Almost certainly, Congress and the President will come to some agreement and the media will report that we have “stepped back from the brink.” However, it is very unlikely that much will be done to deal with the trillions in debt that the “welfare state” has wrought.

Whoever wins elections does nothing to change the natural consequences of disobeying what is often referred to as Natural Law. There is no getting around it; human beings were meant to behave themselves in a certain way. When we violate the standards set by Natural Law, or when our own laws are in conflict with Natural Law, hard consequences await. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes, and as in the parable of the lost son, to return to what is right.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Americans Choose More Government, Less God

With Barack Obama’s decisive victory on Tuesday night, one thing is clear: far too many Americans have surrendered themselves to a liberal/secular Big Government philosophy. With the GOP losing, not only the presidency, but also failing to make gains in the Senate under conditions that could hardly be more favorable, and with same-sex marriage finally winning the approval of an American electorate (though rather liberal ones—Maine, Maryland, and Washington), the United States continues its march towards godless socialism.

I mean, what does it say about our electorate when a decorated Lt. Colonel, Allen West—a great example, not only to the black community, but all of America, loses (but demanding a recount) his congressional seat, but Jesse Jackson Jr., while being the subject of two federal investigations and who has been at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for weeks supposedly getting treatment for a bipolar disorder (though there have been plenty of reports of drug abuse), easily wins reelection (winning 63% of the vote)?!

In the same vein, what would compel Americans to give four more years to a president that has presided over so much financial disaster? I’ll tell you what: a deep commitment to secular/godless liberalism. This is especially the case when it comes to those driven by their libidos. I’m convinced that millions of Americans voted for Obama, Jackson, et al for no other reason than for their support of legalized killing of children in the womb, and for their support of perverted (same-sex) marriage. Too many Americans want the social and legal approval of sex without consequences.

This much also seems clear: for America to turn from this path, hard lessons are going to have to be learned. Sadly, I suspect that we are all going to suffer. Those of us who know the truth need to be prepared for the inevitable disastrous consequences that loom for those on such a godless path. We need to be prepared with loving and open arms for those (and there will be some) who eventually see the light and are looking for answers.  

This is NOT the time to give up. In fact, it is time to become more entrenched and bold when it comes to our defense of the truth. This is the time for more prayer and for more seeking out God’s will and His ways. It is time to go deeper with Him. I’m afraid that we (conservative Christians, myself included) expend too much time and energy on mere political efforts. For things to really change in America, we need a spiritual awakening. We need true revival. Then the politics will take care of itself.

We also need to remember that God desires a relationship with ALL of us. He deeply loves even those who have turned from Him. Those of us who know Him are to be His agents for real “hope and change.” Let’s get busy!!!

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

My 2012 Presidential Election Prediction

States Romney will win (with electoral votes):

  • Alabama (9)
  • Alaska (3)
  • Arizona (11)
  • Arkansas (6)
  • Colorado (9)
  • Florida (29)
  • Georgia (16)
  • Idaho (4)
  • Indiana (11)
  • Iowa (6)
  • Kansas (6)
  • Kentucky (8)
  • Louisiana (8)
  • Mississippi (6)
  • Missouri (10)
  • Montana (3)
  • Nebraska (4)
  • New Hampshire (4)
  • North Carolina (15)
  • North Dakota (3)
  • Ohio (18)
  • Oklahoma (7)
  • Pennsylvania (20)
  • South Carolina (9)
  • South Dakota (3)
  • Tennessee (11)
  • Texas (38)
  • Utah (6)
  • Virginia (13)
  • West Virginia (5)
  • Wisconsin (10)
  • Wyoming (3)

That’s a total of 32 states for a total of 315 electoral votes. (It is possible that Romney could also win Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), and Nevada (6). If he does, I think that this is his absolute ceiling.)

States Obama will win:

  • California (55)
  • Connecticut (7)
  • Delaware (3)
  • DC (3)
  • Hawaii (4)
  • Illinois (20)
  • Maine (11)
  • Maryland (10)
  • Massachusetts (11)
  • Michigan (16)
  • Minnesota (10)
  • Nevada (6)
  • New Jersey (14)
  • New Mexico (5)
  • New York (29)
  • Oregon (7)
  • Rhode Island (4)
  • Vermont (3)
  • Washington (12)

That’s a total of 18 states plus DC for a total of 223 electoral votes.

Say hello to President Romney!!!

Monday, November 5, 2012

Predicting the Presidential Election

I love Electoral College math. I mean, I teach mathematics and I write about politics, so pouring over various Electoral College combinations is right up my alley. Experts all across the country are telling us that this presidential election is coming down to a handful of “battleground” states. Thus, Romney and Obama are spending virtually all of their time and money in these final days before November 6 in states like Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and the like.

For most American voters, the memory of the 2000 election, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore in a narrow Electoral victory (271 to 266) while losing the popular vote 48.4% to 47.9%, is still fresh. The weeks-long battle to count and recount votes in Florida, where the phrase “hanging chads” entered our vernacular, is a path to which no one wants to return. For 36 days, the winner of the 2000 presidential election was in limbo. After countless hours of elections officials leering at ballots, nonstop media coverage, and 47 lawsuits, ultimately it took a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to put the matter to rest.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. In spite of the seeming closeness of this race, another outcome like 2000 is highly unlikely. In fact, only four times in our nation’s history has the winner of the popular vote not gone on to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Prior to the 2000 election, the last time such an event occurred was 112 years earlier, in 1888. Incumbent Grover Cleveland narrowly won the popular vote (eight-tenths of a percent), but Benjamin Harrison easily (by 65 votes) carried the Electoral College. Two other times during the 19th century the winner of the popular vote failed to win the presidency.

The closest Electoral College result in American history occurred in 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by three percent but lost the Electoral College vote to Republican Rutherford Hayes 185 to 184. Probably the strangest presidential election result was one of the earliest. (An excellent source for such data is Dave Leip’s (online) Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.)

In 1824, four candidates received significant support: Henry Clay, William Crawford, Andrew Jackson, and John Quincy Adams. Jackson won the popular vote (41%), followed by Adams (31%), Crawford (16%), and Clay (14%). Jackson also won the Electoral Vote with 99 votes. Adams received 84 while Crawford and Clay received 41 and 37 respectively.

However, Jackson’s Electoral support was not enough to win the presidency. According to the 12th Amendment, the election then went to the House of Representatives where Adams was the winner.

A significant mathematical note here is that in only one case where the winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College did the candidate actually receive over 50% of the popular vote: Tilden in 1876 with 51%—and remember this was the closest Electoral result in U.S. history. So out of the 56 U.S. presidential elections, only once did a candidate receive over 50% of the popular vote and not make it to the White House.

All of this is to say that, in spite of the ENORMOUS amount of attention (not to mention polling) paid to a handful of states, perhaps the best indicator of who will win the presidency are the national popular vote polls. If it looks likely that a candidate is going to receive at least 51% of the national popular vote, an Electoral victory is almost certain.

Political expert Charlie Cook (The Cook Political Report) said as much back in June of this year. “All of this time and effort spent parsing state-level polls would be better spent more closely examining the national polling data, particularly looking at how the candidates are performing now compared with Obama and John McCain in 2008, and examining how likely the members of specific (and potentially decisive) demographic groups are to actually vote.”

Cook also notes that, “If a race is close nationally, it will be close in a lot of individual states, too.” His implication above is that the inverse is also true. If the race is not close nationally, then it will not be close in very many states, including the “battleground” states. In other words, once a candidate reaches a particular level of support nationally, any of the states that were particularly close are almost certainly in line with the national vote.

As I indicated above, that level of support seems to be around 52%. If Romney or Obama gets to this number, any states that are seemingly tied are virtually guaranteed to be in the camp of the leader. Therefore, as we approach November 6, keep an eye on the national polls. (Real Clear Politics (RCP) is an excellent source.)

Of course, currently Romney is the candidate in the best position for such an outcome. As of this writing, Romney’s RCP national polling average stands at 48% while Obama is at 47%. Also, Romney has been at or above 50% in about half of the national polls in the last ten days. Gallup, in its six day polling average, has had Romney at or above 50% since October 15. During this same period Obama has been at 47% or below. No presidential candidate that has polled at 50% or better in the Gallup survey by the middle of October has gone on to lose the election. (Gallup has correctly predicted 16 of 19 presidential races dating back to 1936.)

Keep a particularly close eye on the national polls on the Saturday through Monday prior to Election Day. Most polling agencies will then produce their final predictions. These are the polls upon which their reputations mostly rest, and accuracy will be essential. Plus, extreme efforts to predict any voters left undecided (most of which will prefer the challenger to the incumbent) will be taken. Of course, when all else fails, just check in Wednesday, November 7. This (usually) will tell us everything.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Saturday, October 27, 2012

The Clear Moral Choice

After his drubbing in the first debate, Barack Obama finds himself on the receiving end of plenty of advice when it comes to the next one. Jennifer Granholm (remember her?), the former governor of Michigan turned political commentator (though few know it, as she resides on Al Gore’s Current TV), recently chimed in. “This election involves a moral choice,” she recently declared, adding that, “This is a choice about our national character.”

I have to chuckle whenever liberals want to talk in terms of morality. I mean, after all, it was their party that lustily booed God on their convention floor. Of course, this is in addition to their devotion to killing children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, and their support of sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage.

Ironically, with the devotion they show, for many, liberalism has become a religion. “Observing the basic divide in the American culture,” Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, looks to Howard P. Kainz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Marquette University. Kainz notes: “Most of the heat of [culture] battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism.”

Mohler adds, “Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems for millions of individuals. Looking specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas, canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology…

“Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own dogmas. Among these are the beliefs ‘that mankind must overcome religious superstition by means of reason; that empirical science can and will eventually answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will achieve perfectibility.’”

Of course, this directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian worldview held by most conservatives. Thus, Kainz boldly warns that modern secular liberalism is the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity. This is no new assertion, as Mohler also points out.

In the early 1920s, J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, argued that “evangelical Christianity and its liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions.” In his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen goes so far as to propose that Christian liberalism is not Christianity at all, declaring that “Liberalism has abandoned Christianity.”

Bishop E.W. Jackson certainly thinks so. The fiery black pastor recently implored black Christians to “end [their] slavish devotion to the Democrat Party.” Jackson accuses Democrats of violating “everything we believe as Christians,” and of creating an “unholy alliance” with Planned Parenthood which, he declares, “has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.” He goes on: “Planned Parenthood…has killed unborn black babies by the tens-of-millions…and the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

Many Pastors, of every skin color, are becoming bolder when it comes to political activity. Sunday October 8 was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The movement, led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), challenges the IRS over the 1954 Johnson Amendment which forbids churches from specifically endorsing candidates. Over 1,500 American pastors participated and voluntarily informed the IRS of their “transgression.” (In 2008, the number was only 33.)

As more and more people of faith see our government (especially the federal government) endorsing or specifically engaging in activity that many deem immoral, taking a political stand on the social issues is seen as vital. Pastor Mark Cowart in Colorado Springs told his congregation that, “When a Christian goes in and votes for someone who promotes things that God abhors, I can’t imagine how God sees that. I encourage you to look at your faith and your politics and your vote and see if they correlate.”

Granholm’s recent Huffington Post piece was entitled, “Mr. President: Next Debate, Make Moral Choice Clear.” Of course, what she really means is that she wants Barack Obama to make the case for bigger government. She wants Mr. Obama to make the case for having more of our money. Liberals love to be generous—with other people’s money.

So yes, PLEASE Mrs. Granholm, let’s debate the moral issues. Let’s have Mr. Obama defend his “evolution” on gay marriage and his defense of what could only be described as infanticide. Let him justify to the American people why he prefers to be more generous with our income than he is with his own. Conservatives welcome this debate.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Islam Deserves Its Scorn

As the renowned and pioneering historian Bernard Lewis noted over 20 years ago in The Roots of Muslim Rage, “the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, [is that] the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam.”

After the events of 9/11, Professor Lewis, in The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, also noted that much of the animosity directed toward the West, particularly the United States, is due to old-fashioned envy—stemming from Western progress and Islamic decline. As one reviewer put it, the crux of Lewis's argument is “the sources of rage among Muslims stem from the deep frustration over the loss of a cultural primacy that was once theirs and has now been lost to the forces of modernity, especially as represented by the United States.”

As Muslim savages rage against the U.S. abroad, it is rather telling to examine “the loss of cultural primacy” within Islam, along with the overall effect Islam is having on nations and individuals the world over. Of the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as rated by the Economists Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy, none are full democracies, while 36 are authoritarian regimes (dictatorships). Of the Index’s 10 most authoritarian regimes, 6 of them are members of the OIC.

Muslims are over 23 percent of the world population and produce barely eight percent of global GDP. The average GDP rank for the members of the OIC is 102 (out of 211 nations). The total GDP of the 57 member OIC is approximately $4.9 trillion. That is about one-third of the GDP of the U.S. alone ($14.4 trillion).

According to the United Nations’ 2009 Arab Human Development Report, “For nearly two and half decades after 1980, the [Arab] region witnessed hardly any economic growth. World Bank data show that real GDP per capita in the Arab countries grew by a mere 6.4 per cent over the entire 24 year period from 1980 to 2004 (i.e. by less than 0.5 per cent annually).” One in five Arabs lives on less than $2 per day.

Illiteracy plagues the Arab world. About a third of those living in Arab countries cannot read. This includes about half of all women. There are fewer than 18 computers per 1,000 persons in the Arab world, compared to the global average of 78.3; and only 1.6 percent of Arabs use the Internet.

In the 57 nations in the OIC there are a total of about 500 universities. There are over 5,700 in the U.S. In just over 100 years, the Muslim world has produced nine Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 166. There are about 400 scientists and engineers per 1 million people in research and development in Arab countries, compared to about 4,000 per million people in North America.

Particularly disturbing, and most telling, as one examines Islam, is the role of women in Islamic society. Islamic law (Shariۥa) prohibits women from looking men in the eye, forbids them from wearing shoes that make noise, and forbids them from becoming educated. As Ergun and Emir Caner note in Unveiling Islam, “women are considered possessions in any orthodox Islamic regime…The wife is considered the husband’s sex object.” Also, one of the most alarming admonitions in the Koran allows the husband to punish his wife physically.

Of the 8 nations that the U.S. has placed on its State Sponsors of Terrorism list, 6 of them are Islamic regimes. Of the 16 nations the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has under its Country of Particular Concern designation, 11 are Islamic regimes (all of the others are differing authoritarian regimes, including North Korea, China, and Vietnam). Nice company, huh?

Religious freedom in Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia is virtually non-existent. Like many other Muslim countries, Saudi law states that Islamic apostasy—denying the faith or converting to another religion—is a crime punishable by death. In 2006, Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was arrested (after it was discovered that he possessed a Bible) and faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. Intervention by Afghan president Hamid Karzai resulted in the charges against Rahman being dismissed.

Leading Afghan clerics were highly critical of Karzai, noting that “The Qur'an is very clear and the words of our prophet are very clear. There can only be one outcome: death.” This attitude is very prevalent across the Arab world, validating Professor Lewis’s notion that “many Muslims are beginning to return” to the “classical [violent and repressive] Islamic view.”

In Turkey in 2007, two Turkish converts to Christianity were killed in the Malatya Bible Publishing Firm murders. Also in 2007, Mohammed Hegazy became the first Egyptian Muslim officially to seek to convert to Christianity. An Egyptian judge ruled that, “He can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert.” Muslim clerics issued fatwas calling for his death. His wife’s family has sworn to kill her because she married a non-Muslim. They are both currently in hiding.

All of this pales to the slaughter in Sudan. The Institute on Religion and Democracy reports that “since 1983 Sudan has been devastated by a jihad or holy war led by the militant National Islamic Front, the ruling regime in Khartoum, against all in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains who opposed the imposition of Shariۥa, or Islamic law. The government-sponsored terror has resulted in the deaths of at least two million moderate Muslims, animists, and Christians.”

Of course, as the Caners point out, “Any major religion must first be seen through the eyes of its founder…Muhammad commanded in the Qurۥan, ‘Fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them’ (surah 9:5)…in a world searching for peace, following the life of this warrior brings about bloodshed.” Moments before Abu Mus'ad Al Zarqawi cut off the head of American Nicholas Berg, he said these words in Arabic: “The Prophet, the master of the merciful has ordered to cut off the heads of some of the prisoners of Badr in patience. He is our example and a good role model.”

Zarqawi knew that Muhammad had often used beheading as the means of executing his enemies. Thus, Zarqawi was unmistakably choosing to emulate his “good role model” and spiritual leader.

Clearly, by and large, Islam is an enforced religion with a violent founder, a violent founding, and a very violent past and present. Islam is generally repressive to women and to those of other faiths. Islam is typically financially devastating and technologically backward. Any politician—republican, democrat, and the like—who attempts to paint Islam or Islamic nations in a positive light is at the least not giving the whole picture, and is at the worst, a political coward.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, October 19, 2012

Eugene Elander Reply:

To today’s Gainesville Times letter writer Eugene Elander:

Nothing about "rendering unto Caesar" allows Christians to ignore their faith when it comes to voting. For that matter, neither does our Constitution. In fact, one of our Founders, John Jay--one of the authors of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court--said "it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

Do you think Mr. Jay had the proper "conception of the American system of government?"

Thursday, October 4, 2012

On Last Night's Debate: The Empty Chair Showed Up

There should be little surprise at the results of 2012’s first presidential debate. What the heck else was Obama going to do or say?! This is what happens when you have to run on your sorry record. This is what happens when there is no teleprompter. This is what happens when you don’t have the mainstream media to run cover for you. Chris Matthews essentially said as much, when, in his post-debate tantrum he asked, “Tonight wasn't an MSNBC debate tonight, was it?”

In the 2008 campaign, Obama had no such concerns. There was little for his critics to point to. He stormed through the campaign elevated by his lofty rhetoric. Isn’t it ironic that one of the most repeated criticisms of Romney is his lack of details on the issues, when in 2008, running on his autobiography and a couple of speeches, Americans elected as President the least experienced man to ever have held the office?

Last night’s debate, and for that matter, the last three-and-a-half years, are the results of having the Amateur (thank you Edward Klein!) in the White House. Romney, with his successful business and political career, distinguished himself well last night and helped paint a clear contrast between the two campaigns. More of this will be necessary as there is little doubt that the mainstream media, as they have managed to do for the last several years, will now attempt to clean up this mess by Obama.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

My Opening Statement at the Gainesville College Forum on : "What Role Should Religion Play in Government?"

To deny religion, and specifically Christianity—because, let’s face it, that’s what we’re really talking about here—a role in our government today would be to ignore our Constitution, and turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the plain and simple history of this great nation.

Time and again, our Founders looked to the Word of God, and sought His Divine guidance. They understood well that their efforts without God were in vain. As John Adams noted, “It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” In fact, long before the winds of revolution began to blow in America, the early settlers accepted and operated from this premise.

For example, ten years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, the Puritans founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Under the leadership of their ministers, the Puritans established a representative government with annual elections. By 1641 they had a “Body of Liberties” (essentially a Bill of Rights), which was penned by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward. This was the first legal code established by the colonists.

In 1636 the Rev. Thomas Hooker, along with other Puritan ministers, founded Connecticut. They also established an elective form of government. In 1638, after Hooker preached a sermon from the first chapter of Deuteronomy on the fair and just principles of government practiced by the nation of Israel, Roger Ludlow wrote the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. This was the first constitution written in America. It served as a model of government for other colonies and, eventually, a union of colonies. It also served as a model for the U.S. Constitution.

After writing the Declaration of Ind. (which references God 4 times), Thomas Jefferson, along with Ben Franklin and John Adams, was appointed to a special committee to create an official seal for the United States. Jefferson and Franklin proposed that one side of the seal portray Moses leading the nation of Israel. Adams wrote, “Mr. Jefferson proposed: The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night…”

In his inaugural address to Congress George Washington stated:
“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency…We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Writing to his son, the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams said, “The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.”

John Adams noted that, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity.”

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

Noting the direct influence of religion upon politics in the young U.S., French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville concluded that “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth…The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

In what sense, then, does religion play a roll in the U.S. government? To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice David Brewer: Not in the sense that the United States has an established religion, or that people of the U.S. are compelled to support any religion. Americans profess a wide variety of religions, and some reject all. Americans are free to decide such matters for themselves. The role that religion HAS played in U.S. government, and hopefully will continue to play, is that of a potter’s wheel. Religion—most specifically the Christian religion—was the foundation upon which our forefathers molded and shaped America into what she is today. Our Constitution, laws, values, and institutions reflect this, and our history bears it out.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

Friday, September 21, 2012

Local Liberal Media Bias on Romney's Taxes

I just made the mistake of watching the local news—Atlanta’s 11-Alive News. Early in the broadcast they reported on Mitt Romney’s newly released tax returns. After hearing from an “expert” on how Romney made a mistake in waiting this long, 11-Alive declared that Romney paid about 14% in taxes in 2011 compared to Obama’s nearly 20% (on much less income no less). What 11-Alive failed to report is that the Romney’s donated over $4 million to charity in 2011—nearly 25% of his income, which, of course, dwarfs Obama and Biden’s giving. This, combined with his taxes, means that the Romney’s forked over about 40% of their income to either charity or the government. Way to give us the whole story 11-Alive!! (Of course, this is no surprise, but they need to be called out on it.)

What Libertarians (Like John Stossel) Get Wrong

John Stossel’s recent column, “There Ought Not to Be a Law” reveals many of the shortcomings when it comes to Libertarian orthodoxy. Stossel begins by proposing a false dichotomy. He declares that he is a libertarian because he sees “a false choice offered by the political left and right: government control of the economy -- or government control of our personal lives.”

Denigrating both the right and the left, Stossel declares, “The left thinks government can lessen income inequality. The right thinks government can make Americans more virtuous. I say we’re best off if neither side attempts to advance its agenda via government.”

A common charge leveled against conservatives is that, through our “social agenda” we are “legislating morality,” or attempting to “make Americans more virtuous” as Stossel puts it. While it is true that conservatives are “legislating morality,”—because every law is rooted in some morality—no sound-thinking conservative believes that we can legislate our fellow citizens into a virtuous lifestyle. That has never been the aim of conservatism.

However, what is a part of conservatism is the fact that religion is an indispensible pillar of liberty. Of course, as far as religions go, in the United States of America, the Christian religion has by far been the most influential. It has been this way from our founding.

Touring the young United States to discover why the representative democracy present in America was so successful here while failing in so many other places, French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville declared that, “the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention.”

Noting the direct influence of religion upon politics in America, de Tocqueville concluded that “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious…there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth…The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

For most modern conservatives, it is still impossible to “conceive the one without the other.” Most of today’s conservatives also understand well that the influence Christianity has had in America is by no means an accident. America’s “Schoolmaster” Noah Webster bears this out in his 1832 History of the United States when he wrote that “our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion.” Webster added, “The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles…to this we owe our free Constitutions of Government.”

In other words, the liberty that libertarians love in America is implicitly linked to Christianity. Certainly our Constitution would not exist without it. Having legislation that reflects Christian morality is no detriment to liberty.

The true threat to liberty is the godlessness that is pervasive in today’s liberalism, which has, of course, taken over the Democratic Party. With its devotion to killing children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, and its support of sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage, I always knew that the Democratic Party was the party of the godless. The recent Democratic National Convention just confirmed this.

Revealing the true nature of modern liberalism, the DNC removed a reference to God in the party platform, along with a reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. After conservatives pointed this out to Americans, embarrassed Democrat party leaders were forced to take action. On Wednesday of their convention, an amendment was proposed to reinsert God and Jerusalem into the platform. The ensuing voice vote was an even greater embarrassment.

Amidst boos, jeers, and raised fists, Los Angeles Mayor and convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa had to take three voice votes before he weakly and deceptively declared that the two-thirds majority necessary was achieved. After his pronouncement, the boos grew even louder. Such is the state of today’s Democratic Party.

It is little wonder that a party so hostile to God and His Word has become an anathema to liberty. True liberty only exists in a society where God is revered. Our founding documents made this clear when they Declared, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Only a culture that operates under the premise that they are to be free because they were created to be free by a God whose wisdom guides good government can enjoy true liberty. Libertarians would do well to remember this as they weigh the “social agenda” of the right against the Big Government agenda of the left.

Copyright 2012, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World