New Book

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

Book Banner

Book Facebook

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

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives:

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Saturday, September 2, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, August 21, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Why Does the Little League World Series Discriminate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, August 14, 2017

On President’s Condemning Racial Violence, Some Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

My Interview With Pilgrim Radio

On multiple days, later this week Pilgrim Radio will air a lengthy interview I recently did with them on The Miracle and Magnificence of America. Pilgrim Radio is a commercial-free, listener-supported Christian radio ministry that operates in multiple stations in the western United States. Here is this week's schedule that reveals the dates my interview will air:

You can listen live here:

According to the programming schdule (see here: ), it seems my interviews will air at 3 p.m. and again at 12 a.m. (EST, the times listed in the previous link are Pacific). on 8/3/17 (Thursday/Friday) and 8/4/17 (Friday/Saturday).

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Gender Debate Reveals Again Why the Left Must Be Defeated

Donald Trump has finally returned the U.S. military to sound service policy when it comes to the gender-confused. For nearly the whole history of the U.S. military, and for almost as long as the idea of a “transgendered” person has existed, and for reasons that sounded-minded people have long understood and accepted, individuals who imagined themselves “trapped in the wrong body” (or some version of such perversion) have been barred from serving in any branch of the U.S. armed forces.

The only thing that should be up for debate here is why this took so long. Perhaps it was just some measure of politics, but this decision should have been easy and quick. In other words, the decision whether to ban the mentally ill (I prefer morally ill) from serving in the U.S. military should have happened within the first couple of weeks of the Trump administration. Does anyone really need to study why this

is wrong? In the early 1970s, Hollywood liberals made many jokes at the expense of a man who would stoop to dressing as a woman. M.A.S.H. was by no stretch of the imagination an expression of Christianity or conservatism. In other words, just a few decades ago, even the left had some idea of the abnormality of men dressing as women. Not so today.

I've had much to say already when it comes to the gender-confused (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and that is a horrific indictment on our culture. There’s no way that in any healthy culture so many words must be written explaining and defending what is a male and what is a female.

It is of course absurd that we continue to have to debate the clear, undeniable science and morality of life in the womb, the unmistakable truth of what is marriage, and the like, but to have to debate seriously with large segments of our culture—including high-ranking officials in the worlds of science and politics—what is a man and what is a woman is perhaps the highest level of absurdity any human being in America with two brain cells to rub together has had to endure. Again, we see, liberalism corrupts.

Is there anything in the sexual realm—whether the reproductive act, or the biological classification—where liberals will not compromise? With such compromise—or rejection of absolute truths—comes many different logical conundrums.

As an exercise, try to get someone whose heart and mind are significantly corrupted by liberalism to define male and female. Or ask what is their definition of marriage? (If they give you one, ask them, “Why do you discriminate?”) Or ask them if they agree with federal laws protecting bald eagles, sea turtles, and other animals while they are still inside eggs. If they do, then follow up with the question, “Why do you feel those animal embryos are worth protecting, but not human life in the womb?”

The return to a recognition of gender dysphoria as a disorder by the U.S. military raises some other interesting questions. After North Carolina passed their common sense “bathroom bill,” everyone from the NCAA, the NBA, the NFL, to PayPal, sought to punish the Tar Heel State. The NBA moved its all-star game out of Charlotte. The NFL walked a finer line, but NFL commissioner Roger Goodell still spoke out strongly against laws that are intended to keep men out of women’s restrooms.

Likewise, earlier this year, the NFL threatened the state of Texas over its “bathroom bill.” When asked about the Texas bill, NFL spokesmen Brian McCarthy said, “If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events.” The Trump administration’s decree on the gender-confused puts the NFL in an interesting position.

The NFL has a long history of partnership with the U.S. military. From flag-covered fields to fighter-jet flyovers, troops on the fields and sidelines, camouflage jerseys and hats, and so on, for decades the NFL has aided the American armed forces in promotion, recruitment, and recognition. Of course, for the vast majority of this time, the gender-confused were barred from military service. But now what? Will the NFL continue to aid and abet the science-deniers at the expense of our military?

And speaking of science, how about the Trump administration also reverse the foolishly ignorant Obama-era edict that allows for U.S. women on the front lines of combat operations?

I say again, it is little wonder that American politicians can’t get things as complicated as health care, tax reform, immigration, North Korea, Islamic terrorism, the Middle East, and so on correct. When you can’t agree with your opponent on things as fundamental as life, marriage, and biological gender, there is almost no middle ground left where we can agree. In these grave matters, there is no compromise: the immoral efforts of the modern left must be defeated—both spiritually (which will eventually happen) and politically.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Klinger Gets His Wish: U.S. Military Bans the Gender-Confused

I'll have more to say on this later, but I think the most important thing to first note on this common-sense reversal of Obama's perverse policy experiment that allowed the gender-confused to serve in the U.S. military: WHAT TOOK SO LONG?!!!

Does anyone really need to "study" why this is wrong?!:

Perhaps it was just politics, but this decision should have been easy and quick. I've had much to say already when it comes to the gender-confused (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), and that is a horrific indictment on our culture. I think it absurd that we continue to have to debate the clear, undeniable science of life in the womb, the unmistakable truth of what is marriage, and the like, but to have to seriously debate with large segments of our culture--including high-ranking officials in the worlds of science and politics--what is a man and what is a woman is perhaps the highest level of absurdity any human being in America with two brain cells to rub together has had to endure. Again we see, liberalism corrupts.

Trump deserves some credit here, but to loudly applaud this would be like cheering your adult daughter for finally breaking up with her smelly, jobless, drug-addicted boyfriend. You're happy that it happened, but sorry you ever had to put up with such nonsense.

A final point: If the military can ban the gender-confused, then why can't schools, businesses, and so on, in the name of safety and expense, be allowed to require one's biology to determine one's access to locker rooms, bathrooms and the like?

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

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

We’re Raising Our Boys to be “Dangerous” Men

My wife Michelle and I have three sons and one daughter. Much to the dismay of foolish, so-called “feminists” like Jody Allard, we’re raising every one of them to be “dangerous,” though, not in the sense that Ms. Allard imagines. It’s worse—much, much, worse.

In case you missed it, Ms. Allard is the infamous mother who—while longing for “safe,” “feminist men,” and lamenting the allegedly numerous men who populate the so-called “rape culture,”—has more than once publicly shamed her two sons. I suppose the young men—both in their late teens—should at least be thankful that their angry, deceived, corrupted-by-liberalism mother didn’t kill them in the womb.

Last year, in a piece for the Washington Post, Ms. Allard stunningly declared, “My sons are part of the [rape culture] problem.” What makes her conclusion so stunning is that this mother deems her own boys “part of the problem,” not because of some wicked sexual activity, but merely because they are males and they refuse to participate actively in ending the “rape culture.”

This year, Allard followed up her 2016 hyperbole with this:
If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for [e]quality— aren’t safe, then what man is? No man, I fear. 
I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true. (Emphasis mine.)
Of course, unsafe men include her own sons. Again, Ms. Allard intolerantly labels her own boys unsafe because they have a penis and because they refuse to acknowledge the “rape culture” their mother insists exists.

There is a terrible bit of tragic irony here. Because they’ve been raised by an extremely liberal mother and without a father, almost certainly Ms. Allard’s sons are saddled with a psychology and a worldview that most likely will take them down regrettable paths. As I’ve often noted, the absence of fathers has had a devastating effect on children in America.

Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children living with their married biological parents are the least likely to commit criminal acts. On the other hand, according to Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates,
Children of 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… 
According to Rolf Loeber, Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology and Epidemiology at the Western Psychiatric Institute in the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, “A close and intense relationship between a boy and his father prevents hostility and inappropriate aggressiveness.” This inappropriate aggressiveness is an early indication of potential delinquency later on, particularly in boys.
According to Edward Kruk at Psychology Today, among other “disastrous” results, fatherless children are much more likely to be involved in violent crime (such as sexual assault). Kruk reports that “85 per cent of youth in prison have an absent father; fatherless children are more likely to offend and go to jail as adults.” As Maggie Gallagher warned in the late 1990s, “Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men.”

Additionally, multiple studies note that fatherless children (and children from broken families in general) are FAR more likely to themselves be victims of violence and sexual assault. The National Children’s Alliance reveals,
Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010).
In spite of these sobering facts—that anyone with a sound biblical worldview did not need to read—liberals like Ms. Allard continue to wage war on the family in America. What does the perverse redefinition of marriage achieved by liberals reveal if not that they believe that fathers and mothers don’t really matter? The sexual sin and violence that plagues our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault (or “rape culture”), liberals like Ms. Allard are mourning a culture that they helped to create.

Ms. Allard claims to have talked with her boys about “consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens,” but has she talked to them about what it truly means for a husband to love his wife and for a wife to love her husband? Has she taught them to remain sexually pure until they are married? Has she warned them about the dangers of promiscuity, pornography (and its link to sexual aggression), and the homosexual lifestyle?

Among many other lies and perversions promoted by modern liberalism, my wife and I are warning our children about these dangers. What’s more, we are raising them to be agents of truth in this era of lies. We are teaching them to obey the Word of their Creator when it comes to marriage, sex, the family, and so on. We are teaching them to be witnesses to the world of all that is good and right, but given where we are with the sad state of the family in America, this is especially true of matters in the sexual realm.

In other words, we are teaching each of our four children to be “dangerous” to the cause of the “father of lies” and all of those who aid and abet him in this world.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Sorry, Mr. Pitts, but Liberalism is Beyond “Silly”

Well, well, it seems the “T” in LGBT has finally produced a line that even committed liberals are unwilling—or at least, not yet willing—to cross. For liberal columnist Leonard Pitts, a “genderless” child is the “proverbial bridge too far.” Of course, given the sad, sick, rotten fruit of modern liberalism, Mr. Pitts’ conclusion on genderless children raises the question: Why would any devoted liberal of the 21st century be taken aback by an “enlightened” parent who refuses to recognize the clear gender of his or her newborn child?

Touting his rock-solid liberal credentials, in his recent piece, Mr. Pitts points out,
I have, after all, long taken great pride in supporting LGBTQ freedom. Marriage equality, adoption rights, job protections, I have demanded them. Restroom ID laws, “don’t ask, don’t tell” and so-called “religious freedom” measures, I have fought them.
If modern liberalism “demands” that we dehumanize the unborn and ignore the clear science and morality of life in the womb; if it can procure from U.S. courts a legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity; if it has concluded that elementary, middle, and high school students in America have the “right” to use whatever bathroom or locker room they so desire; if it allows for men to take trophies from women, or that there’s nothing wrong with women on performance-enhancing drugs to take trophies from normal women; if it has determined that women in combat are just as capable as men in combat; if it has decided that men can have babies (Is there a better headline to reveal the corruption of modern liberalism than, “British Man, 21, Makes History by Giving Birth…”?); if it has resolved that a black business owner doesn’t have to serve a “plantation wedding,” but a Christian business owner must serve a same-sex “wedding,” why would any modern liberal be surprised that those under the influence of liberalism would reject one of the tenets of basic biology?

In an effort to undermine Scripture, while at the same time attempting to excoriate Christian conservatives, liberals love to hail their knowledge of biology as they attempt to tout the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution (D.E.). Devoted Darwinists tell us that D.E. is the “foundation of biology,” or the “foundation of modern medicine.” Or, as the infamous Bill Nye put it in a YouTube video leading up to his 2014 debate with Ken Ham (a creation vs. evolution debate), “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” Nye implies that without evolution, “you’re just not going to get the right answer.”

Of course it was Nye who just this year posted this obscenity, which I described a few days later as “the anthem of modern liberalism.” Nye’s insanely stupid video—which he introduced as a “very special…cool little segment”—implies that, where we are now with the gender debate (which is like debating whether or not the earth is round)—with many corrupted by liberalism unable to tell the difference between a boy and a girl—is due to “evolution.” The lyrics in the video also declare
Sexuality's a spectrum
Everyone is on it…
Drag queen, drag king
Just do what feels right
There you have it. The motto of modern liberalism: “Just do what feels right.” Yet a liberal like Leonard Pitts is surprised that folks who heed this ignorant, wicked garbage would stoop to purposefully ignoring and obscuring the gender of their child. Again, this is what liberalism has wrought. In other words, this is what your labor has wrought, Leonard.

And this is FAR beyond being “silly.” It is despicable. These are the efforts of one who is “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” In other words, these are the efforts of one steeped in spiritual darkness.

Again, labeling your child an “it” is what happens when you ignore the eternal truths of the One who made us. Debating gender, life in the womb, marriage, et al, is what happens when “Everybody Wants to Rule Their World.” It is little wonder that American politicians can’t get things as complicated as health care, tax reform, immigration, North Korea, Islamic terrorism, the Middle East, and so on correct. When you can’t agree with your opponent on things as fundamental as life and marriage, there is almost no middle ground left where we can agree.

This is why liberalism must be fought at every turn. Whether politics, education, entertainment, industry, the military, and yes—tragically—even the church, those right-minded must work to defeat liberalism. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Monday, July 10, 2017

See My Recent Interview on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report

I was interviewed this evening on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report. See (mostly listen) below. (Sorry for all of the "Uhs" and "Umms"! Michelle warned me, but I wasn't aware that I was that bad. I've got to work on that!)

Thursday, July 6, 2017

The Vile, Crazy Left

On the political spectrum, I land just to the right of Moses. As I’ve pointed out before, my political positions are the result of my Christian faith. So yes, I’m a bit bothered by how President Trump— for whom I voted, and given the same circumstances, would gladly do so again—chooses to fight back against the “progressive” press. However, I’m glad he is fighting back against the relentless tide of hate-filled rhetoric and lies that are a daily part of the discourse spewed by liberals in the mainstream media and the democrat party.

One of the frequent talking points of those on the left today is that because of the way Trump has dealt with the media—especially through Twitter—and others with whom he disagrees, he is vile, vulgar, “trashy,” undignified, un-presidential, piggish, childish, and as Jay Bookman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution put it, with “all the self-control and discipline of a spoiled four-year-old throwing a temper tantrum at the grocery store.” Yeah, well, at least he’s not a liberal—or, better put, at least he’s not beholden to a liberal agenda.

I’m afraid much of what we read and hear from the President that is undesirable is the result of living most of his life under significant liberal influence. As even Rush Limbaugh himself pointed out less than two months prior to the election last year, Donald Trump is not a conservative—at least not in the sense that most define real conservatism. But as Rush also pointed out, strong conservatism hasn’t been at the top of the GOP ticket since 1984. What Donald Trump is, and what he can continue to be, is a great ally in the battle against liberalism and the radical, perverse agenda of the modern left.

President Trump has proven this many times over since his inauguration on January 20. From (most of) his cabinet appointments, to his Supreme Court appointment, his lower court appointments, his executive orders, and so on, President Trump has gotten much done to aid the cause of conservatism and hinder the cause of liberalism. Of course, liberals are not blind to this, and thus the continuous “nasty” attacks from the left.

And nasty is as nasty does. The left simply can’t help itself, because, for the most part, it is simply who they are. In addition to their dishonest attempts to undermine President Trump and the GOP’s agenda, time and again, liberals have left nearly no insult unturned as they have sought to ridicule and insult President Trump and his family. Along with the countless vile attacks on the President, Ivanka (see here, here, and here), Melania, (see here, here, and here), and even 11 year-old Barron Trump (see here, here, and here) have suffered the evil ire of the modern left.

Yet President Trump is supposed to remain “dignified” and “presidential?” He is probably doing well to respond only in the manner he has. I’m not sure there is a husband and father the world over who has been forced to endure such attacks on himself and his family as has Donald Trump.

The vulgar and crazy attacks against Trump and the GOP aren’t only from the liberal media. Many democrat politicians have not only remained silent—and thus given tacit support to their cohorts in the media—but they’ve joined in the abhorrent attacks against republicans of every stripe. Whether publicly dropping “f-bombs”—as did two democrat senators (so much for the “dignity” of “the world’s greatest deliberative body”) recently in attacking the GOP and President Trump—or comparing the Trump camp to Nazis, democrats across the U.S. are unhinged in their rhetoric.

In late March, no less than the newly elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez, ignorantly and defiantly declared that Mr. Trump “did not win the election.” He colorfully followed that up with the all too common democrat refrain “Republicans don’t give a sh*t about people.”

Just where are the cries for dignity and decent behavior for those on the left? Where are the high expectations for those of the esteemed “Fourth Estate?” Shouldn’t we demand honest and upright behavior from those worthy of specific protection in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Alas, whether elected officials, members of the press, entertainers, educators, and even those devoted to ministry, liberalism corrupts. And liberals still wonder how — just how any self-respecting person could support Donald Trump. Maybe those devoted to killing children in the womb, killing the family, killing capitalism, redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, redefining gender, redefining the Second Amendment, defending and promoting pornography (and virtually any other sexual perversion imaginable), defending and promoting socialism, defending and promoting the myth of global warming, and so on, should consider how vile and vulgar many Americans find the tenets of modern liberalism.

In other words, if modern liberals want to see something really revolting, most of them need to examine their own politics and policies.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Revival Sparked the Revolution (taken from The Miracle and Magnificence of America)

Between the colonial and Revolutionary periods of American history came what historians have dubbed the (first) “Great Awakening.” The lack of passionate Christianity, along with the coinciding adoption of certain liberal interpretations of Scripture and a turn toward the secular, greatly concerned ministers such as Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Prince, and William Cooper.

By the 1730s, passionate and animated pleas for the souls of lost Colonials became widespread. A common refrain was soon heard throughout the colonies: “God was an angry judge, and humans were sinners!”

The earliest principle figure of this period of spiritual revival was the brilliant and pious Puritan minister Jonathan Edwards. Edwards was literally born into Christian ministry. His father was a Congregationalist minister, and his mother, Esther Stoddard Edwards, was the daughter of renowned Massachusetts minister Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard succeeded Eleazer Mather as pastor of the Congregationalist Church in Northampton, Massachusetts. He was a firebrand of a preacher who abhorred alcohol and extravagance.

Though his theology was in conflict with many contemporary Puritan leaders, Stoddard was an extremely influential religious leader in the New England area for several decades. Jonathan Edwards succeeded his grandfather as pastor of the church at Northampton. Edwards was a prolific writer as well and is recognized as one of the great intellectuals of his time. He produced such works as Freedom of the Will, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, and The Life of David Brainerd, which inspired countless missionaries of the nineteenth century.

Jonathan Edwards loved the pulpit, and according to BJU Press, was more teacher and preacher than pastor. In late 1734 and early 1735, revival broke out in Northampton. By the summer of 1735, it ended, but the seeds for something more lasting were planted. Enter the mighty George Whitefield. Whitefield is generally considered the “Father of the Great Awakening.” Born in England in 1714, Whitefield entered Pembroke College at Oxford at age 17. There he joined a group called the “Holy Club,” where he befriended John and Charles Wesley. John Wesley led the group, and as a result of their “methodical” ways, critics took to calling them “Methodists.” Of course, the name stuck.

Upon graduating and receiving his BA, Whitefield was ordained at 22. He began his preaching in the British towns of Bath, Bristol, and Gloucester. However, he felt the call to join General Oglethorpe’s colony in Georgia. In 1738 Whitefield left for North America. Not long after arriving in Georgia, noting the hard conditions, high death rate, and an abundance of children who had lost their parents, he conceived the idea of an orphanage. For the rest of his life, Whitefield raised money for the orphanage.

He also continued to preach. Whitefield’s message was one of salvation, a message which differed a bit from other Anglican ministers at the time who emphasized religiosity and moral living. It was not long before most of Georgia had heard of this young preacher with the booming voice and wild pulpit antics. News of Whitefield and his preaching soon spread throughout the colonies.

In 1739, after a brief return to England in hopes of securing land and funding for the orphanage in Georgia, Whitefield came back to America and would preach throughout the colonies. Jonathan Edwards invited Whitefield to preach in Northampton, Massachusetts. Whitefield’s message resonated with rich and poor, farmers and tradesmen, church-goers and sinners—virtually everyone within earshot of Whitefield, which, according to Ben Franklin, in open space, was 30,000 people!

Whitefield was not alone. Along with Edwards, men like Isaac Backus, David Brainerd, James Davenport, Samuel Davies, Theodore Frelinghuysen, Jonathan Mayhew, Shubal Stearns, the Tennent brothers (Gilbert, John, William), and others implored settlers and Natives alike to trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation. Their message of repentance caught fire up and down the American East Coast. In the words of Brainerd, the ongoing revival was like an “irresistible force of a mighty torrent or swelling deluge.”

As a result of this first Great Awakening, geographical barriers became no more significant than denominational ones. The country was beginning to unite, in more ways than one. In addition to preaching sin and salvation, the Great Awakening played no small role in helping to unite the American Colonies against the British, for it was in the pulpits of American churches that the seeds of Revolution were sown. The British certainly thought this to be the case, as they blamed what they derisively described as the “Black Robed Regiment” for the thirst in the Colonies for American Independence. Modern historians have noted, “There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763.”

For example, in 1750 the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, a Harvard graduate, Congregationalist minister, and pastor of West Church in Boston, published A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. Out of this was born a sermon entitled “The Morning Gun of the American Revolution.” In this, Mayhew uses Romans 13 to justify throwing off the tyrannical yoke of England.

In 1765, Mayhew gave a powerful sermon railing against the evils of King George III’s hated Stamp Act. Mayhew declared,
The king is as much bound by his oath not to infringe on the legal rights of the people, as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows that as soon as the prince sets himself above the law, he loses the king in the tyrant.
According to historian Alice Mary Baldwin, joining Mayhew in leading the opposition to the Stamp Act were the Reverends Andrew Eliot, Charles Chauncey, and Samuel Cooper. George Whitefield accompanied Ben Franklin—whom he had befriended—to Parliament to protest the Act. Franklin revealed to Parliament that Americans would never willingly submit to the Stamp Act. A month later, in March of 1766, celebrating the repeal of the act, Whitefield recorded in his journal, “Stamp Act repealed, Gloria Deo.”

It wasn’t only the ministers of the Great Awakening who were the priestly patriots lighting the fire for the American Revolution. Men like prominent Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon were also instrumental. Witherspoon—a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and president of the College of New Jersey (Princeton)—in 1776, on a national day of prayer and fasting, preached a sermon entitled The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men. The sermon included the following:
There can be no true religion, till there be a discovery of your lost state by nature and practice, and an unfeigned acceptance of Christ Jesus, as he is offered in the gospel. Unhappy are they who either despise his mercy, or are ashamed of his cross. Believe it, “There is no salvation in any other. There is no other name under heaven given amongst men by which we must be saved.”… 
If your cause is just, you may look with confidence to the Lord, and intreat him to plead it as his own. You are all my witnesses, that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season, however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation, that the cause in which America is now in arms, is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature.
Witherspoon was a mentor to many of America’s founders and helped to educate many future leaders of the young United States of America. Among his students included James Madison, future U.S. President and “Father of the Constitution,” Aaron Burr, future U.S. Vice President, twelve future Continental Congress members, forty-nine U.S. representatives, twenty-eight senators, three Supreme Court justices, and a secretary of state.

As America’s Schoolmaster, Noah Webster, would later note, “The learned clergy…had great influence in founding the first genuine republican governments ever formed and which, with all the faults and defects of the men and their laws, were the best republican governments on earth.” In other words, “One nation under God” became the political as well as the spiritual legacy of the powerful preaching so prevalent in 18th century America. The ministry of these faithful men not only brought salvation and hope, but also helped bring rise to the greatest nation in the history of humanity.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Remember: Liberals Don’t Need to Win Elections to Get What They Want

The democrats’ unprecedented losing streak continues. As Rich Lowry noted a couple of days after Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama’s chief legacy is the total collapse of the modern Democrat Party. In the handful of special elections this year—including in Georgia and South Carolina on last Tuesday—nothing has happened to change that.

As a refresher on just how decimated is the modern Democrat Party, in addition to the U.S. Presidency, along with the U.S. House and Senate, republicans hold the state offices in:

· 33 of 50 governorships
· 30 of 45 (with Alabama’s currently vacant) lieutenant governorships
· 31 of 47 secretaries of state

Additionally, the GOP controls 67 of 98 partisan state legislatures. What’s more, republicans now control every branch of government in 25 states (a state government “trifecta”), and have veto-proof majorities in two states with democrat governors. Democrats have a trifecta in only 6 states. The red in the image below reveals the square miles of the U.S. under GOP representation in the U.S. House:

By Kurykh, Mr. Matté - Own work, based on File:115th U.S. Congress House districts.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0,
Nevertheless, as the recent war on President Trump and the more distant—but certainly recent enough—debate on marriage reveal, U.S. liberals don’t necessarily need to win elections to further their leftist agenda. In fact, as most any sentient political observer of the American scene is aware, arguably the sturdiest plank of the democrat platform—abortion—became legal in America, not because of what occurred at the ballot box, but because of the tragically foolish decision of seven unelected justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. As the ban (now lifted) on the so-called “travel ban,” the seemingly never-ending Trump-Russia collusion farce, and the Trump obstruction-of-justice myth prove, if the electorate won’t cooperate, the American left well knows that it can almost always rely on the cooperation of the courts and the mainstream media. 

Since Barack Obama’s election as U.S. President in 2008, election losses for American democrats can literally be measured in the thousands. Yet liberals were still somehow so shocked at Hillary’s loss to Trump in the last presidential election that they’ve turned to wing-nut conspiracy theories in order to undermine his and the GOP’s—sometimes one and the same—agenda. Of course, at nearly every turn the media and the courts have aided and abetted the efforts of democrats.

Even more disconcerting than the rise of fake news to undermine Trump and the GOP is the rise of fake law. It’s one thing to have an army of (mostly) low-educated, left-wing bloggers, reporters, and pundits engaging in media malpractice; it’s quite another to have the highest levels of the American judiciary practicing judicial tyranny. With the rise of the alternative media, the widespread liberal media malpractice we are enduring can be countered. Reining in liberal courts is much more difficult.

Again, before the Trump political era, the marriage debate provides a great lesson here. As recently as November 2009, the U.S. electorate was 31 for 31 in soundly rejecting same-sex “marriage.” At a rate of over two-to-one (67.5%), U.S. voters in 31 states, at the very least banned same-sex “marriage.” This rate of victory for (biblical) marriage was FAR greater than the rate by which most candidates—republican or democrat—win their races.

As I noted at the time, this rejection of same-sex “marriage” occurred not only in conservative states, but in some very liberal ones as well. Along with the reliably red states in the south, mid-west, and mountain west, deep blue states such as Maine, California, Oregon, Hawaii, along with “purple” states such as Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada, all soundly rejected same-sex “marriage.” Across the U.S., from the Deep South to the Northeast to the Midwest to the West coast, American voters united behind (biblical) marriage.

Despite the length and the volume of the electoral defeats (take note, Christian conservatives), liberals in general, but especially liberals in the media, persisted in pushing their perverse views on marriage. (We are now seeing similar tactics as liberals battle biology and sound morality in the debate over gender.) Shaming corporations and corporate executives—most of whom were ill equipped to take an intelligent and principled stand for marriage—soon most every large corporation in the U.S. was an ally for the left in the marriage debate (as they are now in the gender debate).

Astute observers of American politics had to know that the courts were most likely soon to follow. Sure enough, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the American electorate, a misguided, and foolish ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court made same-sex “marriage” the “law of the land” in the U.S. The oldest institution in the history of humanity (marriage is older than God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church, and one of the earliest truths revealed by God) has been legally dismantled by five liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

There’s an important lesson here: If liberals can achieve the legal redefinition of marriage without the aid of the American electorate, there’s little they can’t accomplish. The consequences of the infamous Obergefell ruling are devastatingly wide ranging. I don’t think there is another legal precedent that is as far reaching as the legal re-definition of marriage. And again, liberals achieved this all the while losing elections!

Thus—and sadly—it is not enough for conservatives to win elections. In addition to continuing our efforts in the alternative media, we must make sure the courts are properly staffed. One of the biggest reasons (as should be the case in every presidential and senatorial election) that I, and many others, voted for Donald Trump for U.S. President was because of the role the President plays in the federal judiciary. So far, by most indications, Mr. Trump has done little to disappoint.

As Mr. Trump has at times demonstrated himself to be conservatively challenged, long-entrenched conservatives must ensure that these efforts continue. As the Drudge headline the day of this writing indicates (“Trump To Get Another Supreme Judge?”), we may soon be having another battle over the Supreme Court. Knowing well what’s at stake, liberals will go all out (beware the level of violence!) to keep a solid conservative out of any seat currently occupied by a reliably liberal vote. Trump and the GOP are making progress in dismantling the legacy of Obama and other like-minded liberals. A conservative judiciary at the federal level would go a long way in ensuring that such dismantling is widespread and long-lasting.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

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