New Book

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

Book Banner

Book Facebook

If you "Like" this page, please visit our Facebook page for
The Miracle and Magnificence of America and "Like" it. Thank you!!!

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

News/Commentary Archives---PLUS: Trevor's Columns Archived (page linked at the bottom of the table below):

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Why This White Woman Voted for Brian Kemp

In 1951, a white baby girl was born in a small hospital in Ogbomosho, Nigeria, West Africa. She was raised among the Nigerian people by missionary parents—parents who dedicated their lives to ministering to and sharing the Gospel with people of color. My mom’s family came back to the States when she was a teenager, and they settled here in Georgia, where her parents taught at various colleges and public schools. She met my dad in beautiful Cleveland, Georgia when they were both in their mid-teens. They married at 18, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Mom loved Nigeria and the Nigerian people. She considered that “home” for many years after she returned to the U.S. As far as I know—and I’ve known her for 45 years now—there isn’t a racist bone in her body. My dad was a pastor and counselor for decades before he was killed tragically in a DUI in 2015. My parents love people—of all colors and shapes and sizes—and they instilled that love in their four children. My husband Trevor Thomas and I are, in turn, teaching our four children to love God and to love all people as well.

I turned 18 in 1991, and I was excited beyond words to participate in my first presidential election the following year. I campaigned for George H.W. Bush. I made signs at the local Republican Party headquarters to help welcome him to Gainesville on his Whistle Stop Train Tour. I cried when he lost to Bill Clinton.

In the 1996 election cycle, I campaigned early on for a brilliant, articulate, conservative Harvard PhD and United Nations Ambassador by the name of Alan Keyes. Of course he was—and still is—a black man. Sadly, Keyes didn’t make it out of the primaries. Herman Cain and Ben Carson are other “people of color” who I believe would have made outstanding presidents, and I would have supported them wholeheartedly if they had made it to their respective general elections.

In last year’s race for governor, we the people of the great state of Georgia were faced with a choice, though not a difficult choice at all, in my humble opinion—a conservative white man or a liberal black woman. Imagine for a moment that the characteristics had been reversed. Had Stacy Abrams been a pro-life, pro-small business, pro-biblical marriage, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-liberty candidate, and Kemp had been the socialist, pro-abortionist, anti-gun, anti-small business candidate, I would have crawled to the polls on my hands and knees, if necessary, to vote for Abrams.

However, Kemp is the conservative and Abrams is the liberal. It’s as simple as that. It matters not a twit that he is a white man and she is a black woman. I will vote for a candidate with conservative values over a liberal candidate at any time of the day or week or year. I couldn’t care less what color the candidate’s skin happens to be. It truly is what’s on the inside that counts.

Apparently, the Women’s March leader, Linda Sarsour, blames me for Georgia’s recent “Heartbeat Bill,” which outlaws abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. On May 14, she tweeted,
While folks are debating tactics to respond to Georgia’s heartbeat bill, let’s remember that 76% of the white Women electorate in GA (more than white men) voted for Brian Kemp over Stacey Abrams. That’s where the work needs to happen. WW continue to uphold the patriarchy.
Unfortunately, Sarsour’s racist rant here is typical rhetoric from today’s left. I wish we could move on to more important issues that affect all Americans instead of dwelling on such insignificant differences as skin color. But it seems as though democrats will continue to play the race card in order to win voters to their side and gain political power. Since there is no substance to Sarsour’s argument, she is forced to stoop to slimy, deceptive tactics like race-baiting.

So yes, Linda Sarsour, this white woman voted unashamedly for Brian Kemp, and I would most definitely do it again, in a heartbeat. But it wasn’t to uphold “the patriarchy,” as you foolishly proclaim, and neither was it because Kemp is white. You completely miss the forest for the trees when you tout that ignorant garbage. As long as and whenever I have the opportunity to vote for a candidate who stands for truth, justice (for all—born and unborn), and the American way, you can bet your liberal bottom borrowed dollar that he or she will have my support. Red and yellow, black and white, we are all precious in the God’s sight, but some are much more deserving of my vote than others.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas
Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new Through Deep Waters: Finding Healing and Hope in Devastating Grief and Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is, and she can be reached by email at

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

When Infanticidal Democrats Are Accidentally Correct on Abortion

Recent words by notorious democrats again prove the old adage: even a broken clock is right twice a day. In this case, we have had two democrats in less than two weeks accidentally speaking truth to one of the gravest moral issues of our time.

First of all, we have Alabama state representative John Rogers (D). At the beginning of this month, the republican-controlled Alabama House overwhelmingly passed (74-3) pro-life legislation that would make abortion a felony except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. The bill will likely not become law, as it will probably die in the Alabama Senate. Aware of this, pro-life lawmakers hope to use the legislation as a means to overturn Roe.

In debating the bill, while attempting to defend the indefensible—the killing of unborn children—representative Rogers made clear the democrats’ position when it comes to the most helpless and innocent among us when he declared,
Some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved, you send them to the electric chair. So, you kill them now or you kill them later.
Note that Rogers here provides us with several bits of rare clarity when it comes to democrats and the unborn. Repeatedly using the word “kill,” Rogers reminds us what an abortion actually results in: the death of a human being. As a popular pro-life refrain goes, “If it isn’t a life, then why do you have to kill it?”

Also, Representative Rogers failed to resort to the anthropomorphically ambiguous language so common among those who wish to sanitize what is really happening when an abortion occurs. Instead, Rogers made the mistake of referring to unborn children as “kids.” To protect the “right” to kill children in the womb, for decades those corrupted by liberalism have sought to dehumanize the unborn.

Thus, we often hear children in the womb described as a “zygote,” “embryo,” or “fetus.” Though these terms are medically correct, the left employs such language in order to avoid using the more humanizing words such as “baby,” “child,” or “kid.” What’s more, in order to hide their evil behavior toward children in the womb and to further dehumanize the unborn, the left will often abandon medically accurate terminology for unborn human beings and simply make stuff up.

In 2015, writing about the scandal involving Planned Parenthood and the selling of baby parts, Jen Gunter of The New Republic declared, “These are not ‘baby parts.’” She prefers that the “tissue specimen” be referred to, not as a fetus or an embryo, but as a “product of conception.” Gunter declared that the term “baby” doesn’t apply until birth.

Likewise, on CNN recently, breaking trend with democrats who have been accidentally correct on life in the womb, while debating “heartbeat bills” that have become law across the U.S., former Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn—a democrat, of course—said,
When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It is part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control of her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.
Thus, the so-called “party of science” again reveals just how much stupidity they will stoop to in order to justify their perverse sexual agenda.

Speaking of stupid, Alyssa Milano has tweeted again. Rightfully ignoring the threats of the ignorant Hollywood elite, Governor Brian Kemp recently signed Georgia’s version of a fetal heartbeat bill into law. Like so many others on the Hollywood left, because of the favorable tax laws passed by Georgia conservatives, Milano finds herself working in Georgia. Being a full-fledged member of the sex-crazed ignorant Hollywood elite, Milano can’t seem to help interjecting herself into Georgia politics.

After Governor Kemp signed the heartbeat bill into law, Milano decided it was time for action. On May 10, through her Twitter account, Milano called for a “sex strike.” She tweeted:
Our reproductive rights are being erased. Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy. JOIN ME by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back. I’m calling for a #SexStrike. Pass it on.
It seems that liberals are more clueless about biology than we thought. Seemingly unaware of the irony of her call, pro-life conservatives on Twitter soon clued her in:

Of course, the world would be a much better place if Milano and her ilk—men and women alike—would remain on a “sex strike,” at least until they are in a committed marital relationship. Sadly, this is not the plan. As a Milano supporter in the New York Post reveals, the real desire for pro-abortionists is to turn states like Georgia into states like New York. Because, “if you’re in a place where you can still have abortions, like New York State,” then one can “f— all you want!”

And thus, we see Ms. Milano produce even more unintended truth from the left! Without stating so in such clear terms, for decades the left has sold their wicked sexual agenda upon the notion that if voters will just elect democrats, then one can “f— all you want!” This has resulted in not only a war on the unborn, but a war on marriage, the family, and the ultimate target of the modern left: the truth.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, April 18, 2019

Georgia Media Engages in Polling Propaganda

In order to further the liberal agenda on the legalized killing of children still in their mothers’ wombs and to help elect more democrats, the largest newspaper in the state of Georgia—The Atlanta-Journal Constitution (AJC)—has engaged in polling propaganda. Of course, like virtually all U.S. newspapers, given that the AJC is dominated by those with a liberal worldview, this should surprise no one. However, it doesn’t mean we should let them get away with it.

As I noted in a recent column, earlier this year the Georgia legislature passed the LIFE Act—often dubbed a “fetal heartbeat” bill. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has yet to sign the bill, but he is widely expected to do so. Given that protecting the so-called “right” to kill the unborn is sacred to the modern left, liberals across my home state of Georgia have gone to great lengths to demonize and discourage anyone willing to stand up for the most helpless and innocent among us.

In an effort to discourage the pro-life movement and to paint the U.S. as more pro-abortion than it really is, for years now abortion apologists—especially those in the media and the Democrat Party—have promoted polls that supposedly show overwhelming support for the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. For example, late last summer, after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, a Wall Street Journal (WSJ)/NBC News poll purported to show 71 percent of Americans were against “completely overturn[ing]” Roe.

However, such polls are almost always seriously flawed. As Michael J. New noted at the time,

The survey question began by stating that Roe v. Wade established a right to an abortion, “at least in the first three months of pregnancy.” It then asked respondents if they would like to see the Supreme Court “completely overturn” Roe v. Wade. As such, many respondents likely concluded that Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in the first trimester and a reversal of Roe would ban first-trimester abortions.

On the question of overturning Roe, the recent AJC poll uses the exact same deceptive language as the WSJ/NBC poll. The question reads,
In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision or not?
Unsurprisingly, poll results showed that, to the above question, 70 percent answered “no.” Subsequently, on its website (and I’m assuming in the print edition as well) the AJC ran the headline “AJC poll: Strong support for Roe.” The first sentence of the article declared, “Seven of 10 Georgia voters say they oppose overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to an abortion, according to a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll.”

The article made no mention of how polling subjects were asked about the Roe decision. To warn readers about this, I noted as much in the comments section of the article. Shortly thereafter, my comment was deleted, and soon after that, the AJC website posted an article that contained the poll questions and results.

Given that we are 46 years removed from the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe, many Americans are ignorant about the fact that Roe v. Wade deals with abortion. Thus, pollsters are left to try to explain the decision in one or two sentences. Therefore, we get inaccurate polling results on the Roe decision and on abortion. As was noted in National Review last year,
A Pew Research Center poll taken in 2013 found that only 62 percent of respondents were aware that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion. Seventeen percent thought Roe v. Wade dealt with some other public-policy issue and 20 percent were unfamiliar with the decision. Furthermore, even many who realize Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion fail to understand the full implications of the decision. Many wrongly think that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in [a] national ban on abortion, instead a reversal of Roe would return the issue to the states.
What’s more, while the recent AJC poll supposedly showed overwhelming support for the Roe decision, respondents were about evenly split on their support for Georgia’s LIFE Act. Forty-three percent said they somewhat or strongly supported the bill while 48 percent said they somewhat or strongly opposed it. These results are more in line with what more sophisticated abortion polling reveals.

For example, consider last year’s Gallup poll on abortion. On the question of whether the Supreme Court should overturn Roe, 28 percent said yes and 64 percent said no. However, more detailed questioning reveals that Americans are not as much in favor of Roe as a simple question on overturning Roe might indicate. When asked whether an abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, “When the woman does not want the child for any reason” (the vast majority of abortions are performed because the child would be an inconvenience), 45 percent said it should be legal, while 53 percent said it should not be legal.

When the same question is asked about the last three months of pregnancy, only 20 percent said abortion should be legal, while 77 percent said it should not be legal. Likewise, in the last three months of pregnancy, when asked about whether abortion should be legal if the child would be “born mentally disabled” or “born with Down Syndrome,” the vast majority thought abortion should be illegal (61 percent to 35 percent and 68 percent to 29 percent, respectively) in such cases.

However, under the court’s current interpretation of Roe—a legal and moral abomination— laws that would restrict abortion according to the above opinions would almost certainly be struck down. In other words, because of the pro-abortion hyperbole regularly thrown around by liberals, many Americans simply don’t understand that for U.S. laws to reflect such opinions, Roe would have to go.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, April 11, 2019

Guess What’s Worse Than “Creepy Uncle Joe.”

It turns out that handsy Ol’ Uncle Joe really is a bit “creepy” after all. We can all say that, now that enough democrats have told us this is the case. At least this is the current take of certain presidential-minded democrats who’ve decided that they no longer want or need Joe Biden. If these democrats were in their right minds, they would realize that loveable Ol’ Joe—with his hair sniffing and back rubbing and face pecking—is among the least of their problems.

Nevertheless, right now many in the democrat party simply want to be done with Biden because of “inappropriate touching.” This is the man who served in their party as Vice President for eight years and as a U.S. Senator for 36 years. By inappropriate touching, they mean things like hand-holding, forehead-to-forehead conversations, holding women “for a beat too long” at receptions, and the like. No one is alleging anything criminal, nor is anyone using the phrase “sexual harassment.”

What’s more, very little we are hearing from Biden’s accusers and their accomplices is new information. It seems clear that these accusations against Biden are little more than a political ploy by some democrats who hope to rid themselves of what they see as an old straight white man who doesn’t seem quite hip or radical enough to be their presidential nominee. As Brent Bozell and Tim Graham recently put it,
The Democrat-media complex has suddenly decided that Joe Biden has a creepiness problem. Why now? Why not when he was vice president for eight years? Does anyone remember the allegedly fierce White House press corps pelting the press secretary with questions, asking when then-President Obama would tell his understudy to stop putting his hands on women -- and little girls -- and putting his face uncomfortably close to theirs?
In spite of the efforts of his fellow democrats who want the “creepy old man” label to force him to just go away, Joe Biden seems to be leaning toward making them beat him the old fashioned way: at the ballot box—or at least Biden hopes to force his opponents to have to work hard in rigging the primaries. Whether Biden runs, or whether he gets the nomination, the efforts against him remind us that democrats remain blind to the real problems within their party.

For example, far worse than space-invading Biden is biology-denying Biden. Recall, more than once, Joe Biden has called “transgender equality” the “civil rights issue of our time.” Because of his efforts and the efforts of those like-minded in the Obama administration, among other perverse—or “creepy”—things, boys started using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Soon afterward, boys started—and continue—to take trophies from girls.

In addition, because of their lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, again ignoring sound science, morality, and common sense, the Obama-Biden administration lifted the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations. In other words, time and again Joe Biden and his like-minded ilk—which includes pretty much every democrat running for president—continue to ignore the truth about something as fundamental as the difference between males and females. They turned their wicked ignorance into disastrous policy for the nation. Quite a bit worse than serial hair sniffing, don’t you think?

Also recall that biblically-ignorant Biden preceded Barack Obama and the Supreme Court in voicing his support for legally redefining marriage. To prove his apostasy, Biden has even officiated a same-sex “wedding.” As if a legal redefinition of the oldest and most foundational institution in the history of humanity wasn’t enough of a blow to Christianity, in 2012 the Obama-Biden administration issued its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

Through these other nefarious efforts, Biden, Obama, et al have regularly waged war on Christianity and religious liberty. Ignoring the centuries-old beliefs of those who don’t share his perverse modern views on marriage and sexuality, as Vice President, Biden strongly supported passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As Ryan Anderson put it,
[ENDA] tramples First Amendment rights and unnecessarily impinges on citizens’ right to run their businesses the way they choose. The proposed legislation does not protect equality before the law; instead it would create special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.
Again, virtually every democrat—including those running for president—share such oppressive views on Christianity and religious liberty. Instead of making life more difficult for us Christians, I would prefer a hug from Joe Biden.

Killing newborn children who happen to escape the deadly instruments of an abortionist and emerge alive from their mothers’ wombs is far worse than anything a moral person would deem “creepy.” Yet modern democrats are actually making the case for what could be described as “post-birth abortions.” Infanticidal democrats are concerned that Joe Biden is not sufficiently devoted to the cause of killing the unborn—or even the newborn, if necessary. It seems Mr. Biden is a bit too “creepy,” but not quite heartless enough for modern democrats.

If you would be “creeped out” by someone coming into your home and stealing your stuff, then socialism is probably not your thing. Nevertheless, democrats’ embrace of all things socialist is only rivaled by their lust to make legal nearly every perversion imaginable in the sexual realm.

Whether the “New Green Deal”—supported by a majority of leading democrats—or Medicare for all—supported by most of the democrats’ 2020 presidential field, along with an “aggressive and expanding” group of over 100 Congressional democrats—in the vain pursuit of utopia, modern democrats continue to promise to spend other people’s money. As I noted recently, for a picture of just how worse than “creepy” socialism can be, take a look at Seattle, San Francisco, or Venezuela.

So we have hair smelling, hand-holding, and hugging vs. socialism, infanticide, and those who can’t—or refuse to—tell the difference between males and females. Given such, I’ll take “creepy” over the democrats’ platform any day.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America

Friday, April 5, 2019

Hollywood: Do You Know Why You’re in Georgia?

After Georgia lost out to Louisiana on the production of Ray (the film about Georgia native Ray Charles) in 2008, then Georgia governor—now U.S. Secretary of Agriculture—Sonny Perdue, a Republican, signed tax-incentive legislation that was intended to lure the film industry to Georgia. It worked, and in a big way. Georgia is now often referred to as “the Hollywood of the South.” However, the way things are trending in film production, California may soon seek to become “the Georgia of the West.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, a report by Atlanta’s NBC News affiliate “11-Alive” described Georgia as “the top filming location in the world.” In 2016 and 2017, Georgia led the U.S. in the number of top-grossing feature films produced. In that two-year period, Georgia produced 32 such films, while California was second with 22 top-grossing films. In 2016, Georgia led the world in the production of top-grossing films.

Additionally, in the last decade Georgia has seen a massive investment in film and television infrastructure. U.S. News reports that, “According to Adweek, 16 film and TV studios announced plans to locate or expand facilities in Georgia since 2010.” In 2014, Pinewood Studios Group built its massive Georgia campus. According to U.S. News,
After two expansions, the 700-acre site now houses 18 sound stages with nearly 1 million square feet of covered space. Outside of California, Pinewood Atlanta is the largest purpose-built studio complex in the country, meaning it was built specifically to fit the needs of the film industry.
A Time magazine piece last year reports on “How Georgia Became the Hollywood of the South.” The piece contains several photos of the booming film infrastructure present in Georgia. The piece also notes,
In 2007, the film industry spent $93 million on productions in Georgia. In 2016, it spent over $2 billion. In the past decade, the tax perk has attracted the Hunger Games franchise, the Fast and Furious movies and superproducer Tyler Perry, who has made the state his base. Television hits like Stranger Things, critical darlings like Atlanta and reality series like The Real Housewives of Atlanta have all set up shop in the capital, often for years at a time. Georgia’s government estimates that in 2016 alone, the film industry gave the state a $7 billion economic boost through job creation and tourism.
In other words, the film industry and the state of Georgia have a nice little thing going that seems to be extremely financially beneficial to both sides. However, it doesn’t seem widely understood among those in Hollywood why things in Georgia are so favorable for their industry. This especially seems to be the case with those who make their living in front of the cameras. For those of you who need reminding or are confused or ignorant about why the film industry likes Georgia, allow me to shed a bit of light on the matter.

For over a decade, the Republican Party has dominated Georgia’s politics. The GOP in Georgia has had a “political trifecta”—control of the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate—since 2005. Republicans have won every state-wide race since 2010. Notice how GOP control of Georgia politics coincides with the meteoric rise of the film industry in Georgia. It was a GOP Governor, House, and Senate in Georgia that gave Hollywood the favorable financial conditions it now enjoys, and it is Georgia republicans who keep such conditions in place.

The Georgia GOP has won elections, not just by promising to govern as economic conservatives, but because of their conservative positions on the moral issues as well—especially the issues of life in the womb and marriage. Recall that like dozens of other U.S. states, the Georgia electorate—the voters, not the politicians or courts, mind you—overwhelmingly chose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Unsurprisingly, for well over a decade now, these same voters have decided that they want politicians who share their worldview on the moral issues.

In other words, if you want the benefits of financial conservatism, then you’re going to have to be at least content with conservative legislation on abortion and the like. The same political worldview that has created an economic climate that allows for the creation of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue in the film industry is the same political worldview that protects life in the womb, believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, believes that boys don’t belong in girls’ locker rooms, and so on. These positions have proved quite politically popular in Georgia, and that is why the GOP is in power here.

Ignorant of such facts, for weeks now dozens of Hollywood actors and actresses have threatened the state of Georgia over a recently passed—but yet to be signed into law—pro-life “fetal heartbeat” law. A few days after the Georgia Senate passed the LIFE Act, Alyssa Milano—who thinks MAGA hats are “the new white hood”—penned a brief and angry op-ed for Deadline. A day after Milano’s op-ed, the Writers Guild of America also took their “brave” stand against defending the most helpless and innocent among us. As if we all didn’t already know, Hollywood again made it clear that their “right” to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm trumps almost everything else.

Filmmakers may well decide that instead of making movies and TV shows in Georgia, they would rather take a “principled” stand in favor of killing the unborn and take their business elsewhere. If they hope to find another state that will give them a similar sweet deal on taxes as has Georgia, almost certainly such a state will also be filled with conservatives and conservative politicians who share Georgia’s views on the unborn.

Along with believing in capitalism and the free market, conservatives all over the U.S. generally also believe in the right to life, marriage as the union of one man and one woman, that science determines sex, and so on. We conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—reject the immoral “theology of self” that so permeates Hollywood. We believe that there is a higher Law that all other law and good government must be rooted in and subject to.

Thankfully—unlike Georgia’s last republican governor—in Brian Kemp it seems we now have a governor who’s actually willing to govern according to conservative principles. Though, signing into law a bill that almost certainly will—at least temporarily—be blocked by the courts is not the bravest political act Governor Kemp could—or should—perform. There are other grave moral matters that deserve his, and the Georgia legislature’s, attention.

A strong religious liberty bill (succeeding where former Governor Deal failed), protecting female athletes and students from the transgender madness that is sweeping the nation—these also need sound conservative action in Georgia. Such legislation will be much more likely to withstand legal challenges. And make no mistake about it, as is the case with abortion, Hollywood perverts will howl about any legislation that doesn’t conform to their immoral worldview.

On abortion, Governor Kemp—along with all Georgia republicans—should call the bluff of the Hollywood elite. Let’s see if they really are willing to abandon the tens-of-millions in profits that Georgia’s conservative tax laws allow them, along with the multi-million dollar infrastructure investments already in place in Georgia. In other words, if Hollywood wants to continue to do business in Georgia, they can surrender to the will of Georgians when it comes to our laws. If not, then good riddance, and good luck finding a political climate that will give you what you want on the economic and the moral issues. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, April 1, 2019

“Seattle is Dying” because Liberalism is Killing It

If you haven’t seen the KOMO News special Seattle is Dying, you need to. (Watch it here.) The hour-long show does a sound job of depicting the ugly decline of one of the most beautiful places in America. However, the piece misses the forest for the nasty, dirty, twisted trees.

Of course, part of the root of the problem in Seattle is political, but Seattle is Dying virtually ignores the liberal politics behind Seattle’s foul decline. As John Sexton at Hot Air put it, “There’s really no escaping the fact that the current situation is the result of political decisions.”
And yet, reporter Eric Johnson [the KOMO reporter behind the story] said on Facebook that he though[t] politicizing the story was a mistake. He says he’s received many offers to comment on national shows that lean either right or left and he’s turned them all down. He really seems to believe that people on all sides of the aisle can see the problems and the solutions regardless of where they are coming from.
Johnson begins his report by describing the “seething anger” of Seattle residents who no longer feel safe in their city. Scenes of filth—that rival what is seen in third-world countries—and “lost souls” litter the hour-long report. Residents and small business owners are “mad” and “embarrassed” at the fact that, in many places, their city, simply put, “looks like sh-t.” And law enforcement personnel are little to no help at all.

One small business owner describes the police as “a bunch of twinkle-toes…[who] don’t have enough authority.” It’s virtually unanimous among those fed up with what Seattle has become, that law enforcement are not to blame. Frustrated Seattle residents say that the police have had their hands tied—or their toes “twinkled”—by the politicians and the courts. They point especially to Seattle’s mayor and city council.

At a townhall meeting, seething residents scream at city council members to “enforce the law” and otherwise get tough on the violent and destructive homeless so rampant in Seattle. Using FBI data from 2017, Johnson shows a graphic that displays the number of property crimes for the 20 largest U.S. cities. Easily out-pacing all other U.S. cities are Seattle and San Francisco.

Given that liberal politics and policies have turned San Francisco into a literal toilet—where one must consult “poop maps” in order to navigate the streets safely —citizens of Seattle should not be shocked that the democrats who run their city government are getting similar results in their liberal efforts against crime and filth.

A 61-page report compiled by Scott Lindsey analyzes the criminal activity of 100 “prolific offenders” who regularly threaten Seattle neighborhoods and streets. Johnson interviewed Lindsey for Seattle is Dying. Lindsey was asked, “Of the 100 that you looked at, what percentage of them were homeless?” The answer: 100 percent. Lindsey is also asked, “What percent showed signs of addiction?” The answer: 100 percent. Yet Seattle mayor Jenny Durkin (D) says “It is wrong to conflate homelessness with a rise in crime.”

Homelessness and crime are “conflated” like disease and homosexuality. And just as is the case with homosexuality, liberals like Jenny Durkin want to tell us “her truth.” After all, if you’re a liberal, it’s not that important to be factually correct. Seattle is run exclusively by politicians like Durkin, and despite the anger of residents over the issues of homelessness, crime, filth, and the like, it doesn’t look like Seattle is going to elect conservatives—or even republicans anytime soon.

In fact, there are some recent reports that Seattle is going to continue its leftward march. In January of this year a headline in The Seattle Times read, “The Seattle City Council may be up for a big shift all right — further to the left.” The article notes,
With a wave of retirements, it’s true the council is prepped for a major political realignment. But if anything it’s even further left.

“Socialists into City Hall!” is how the Seattle chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America sees the opportunity, according to a meeting notice this month for the group…Already Democratic Socialist members are running vigorous campaigns for two of those empty seats. Community organizer Tammy Morales is the early favorite in Harrell’s South End district, as she nearly defeated him in 2015. And Shaun Scott, a Black Lives Matter activist and local writer, is vying for Johnson’s seat.
An upcoming meeting will feature Morales, Scott and Seattle’s one current elected socialist, Kshama Sawant, talking about how it’s they who are really going to take back the city. “Socialists have a different idea of what Seattle should look like,” the announcement says.

For an idea of what socialists think Seattle should “look like” visit the Facebook page “Seattle Looks Like Sh-t.” For an idea of what socialists think things should look like on a national scale, examine Venezuela.

Seattle's socialism

As Seattle is Dying notes, the Puget Sound Business Journal estimates Seattle and outlying areas spend $1 billion annually—a number that is “almost certainly underestimated”—addressing and responding to the homeless situation. Eric Johnson exasperatingly declares, “The more money we throw at the problem, the worse it gets.” Yet, almost certainly, the solution to Seattle’s homeless crisis, according to Democratic Socialists of America—along with plain-ol’ democrats—involves spending even more money.

With his voice full of frustration, Johnson declares that what’s happening in Seattle “isn’t about dollars, it’s about human lives…How can watching human beings live and die in filth and degradation and madness be right?” Of course, it isn’t “right,” but when dealing with moral issues, those with a liberal worldview cannot be trusted. Thus they certainly should not be given political power.

As has always been the case, the moral problems that plague the world defy mere political solutions. However, sound politics is certainly part of the solution, and that part of the answer is really rather simple. If Seattle voters truly want to cure to what is killing their once-beautiful city, they must stop electing liberals.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, March 30, 2019

Obama's DHS Secretary: "We Are Truly in a Crisis" at the Southern Border

No less than Jeh Johnson, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration from 2013-2017, has declared the situation at our southern border a "crisis." Best of all, he did so on MSNBC.

Refusing to take the political bait from "Morning Joe's" Mika Brzezinski when she condescendingly asked, "Do these proposals [from Kirstjen Nielsen, Pres. Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security] even come close to representing America?" Much to Mika's disappointment, Johnson replied,
When I was in office in Kirstjen Nielsen's job at her desk, I'd get to work around 6:30 in the morning and there'd be my intelligence book sitting on my desk, the PDB, and also the apprehension numbers from the day before. And I'd look at them every morning, it would be the first thing I'd look at, and I probably got too close to the problem. [M]y staff will tell you if it was under 1,000 apprehensions the day before, that was a relatively good number. And if it was above 1,000, it was a relatively bad number, and I was going to be in a bad mood the whole day. On Tuesday, there were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like. So, we are truly in a crisis.
Watch the exchange below:

I'm sure the democrat hacks at MSNBC were greatly disappointed to hear someone from the Obama administration stray so far from the Democrat Party narrative on immigration and border security--and on their network no less! They shouldn't be too surprised. Former Sec. Johnson has, at times, been truthful about our border situation. In a report from his office of Homeland Security in 2014, he wrote,
The fact is, over the last several years, we have made great strides in border security. With the support of Congress, total apprehensions by Border Patrol – which are a direct indicator of total illegal attempts to cross the border – have gone down substantially in recent years. In FY 2000, Border Patrol apprehensions were at a high of more than 1.6 million. In FY 2013, Border Patrol apprehensions dropped to less than 420,000. That number will increase somewhat in FY 2014, owing to the spike in migration this summer in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, which has now receded to at least FY 2013 levels. The overall decline in illegal migration over the last 14 years is due in very large measure to the unprecedented levels of personnel and resources we have dedicated to border security. Today there are 20,000 border patrol agents (compared to 15,000 in 2008), 652 miles of fencing and barriers (compared to 267 in 2008), 9 unmanned aircraft systems (compared to 4 in 2008) and 12,722 ground surveillance systems (compared to 6,712 in 2008) all devoted to this Nation’s border security. 
With the help of Congress, we must and we will continue this good progress.
Note that "good progress" includes an increase of over 140% in border "fencing and barriers." Of course, President Trump is trying to continue such "good progress" when it comes to border security, but lying liberal hacks in the Democrat Party and the left-wing media stand against such efforts. Good for Jeh Johnson for telling them some truth!

Copyright 2019, 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, March 27, 2019

Democrats and the Mueller Report: Remember What They Said

Robert Mueller is done; Trump-Russia collusion is dead; but the war on the Trump presidency rages on. As many Congressional democrats and their lackeys in the left-wing media continue to pursue their foolish dream of removing President Trump from office, it’s important to remember that swing-district democrats—whose victories gave control of the U.S. House to their party—won their elections not by promising to impeach President Trump.

In other words, all those Democrat Party chairs now promising endless investigations of the President are only in the position to do so because their swing-state comrades laid off the impeachment chatter. Or, as John Lawrence of The Hill put it the day after the Mueller report summary was released,
Democrats did not win the majority on a promise to relentlessly pursue Trump; they won because candidates for Republican seats persuaded voters, long before the Mueller report was issued, that they could be trusted to address tough issues like health care, immigration, campaign finance reform, and integrity in government. If Democrats hope to retain those seats — and a majority — in 2020, they will have to demonstrate that the voters’ confidence was not misplaced. They assuredly will not retain the hard-won majority if they are perceived as single-mindedly heading down the impeachment, or even the Mueller-Barr, rabbit hole.
Again, not only did swing-district democrats avoid or down-play talk of impeachment, they also frequently spoke of waiting on the Mueller report—as well as relying upon Mueller’s report—before deciding on whether impeachment of President Trump was indeed called for. Let us review their own words.

In September of 2018, The Washington Free Beacon reported,
Gil Cisneros (CA-39) and Katie Porter (CA-45), have generally said they support the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, and that decisions on impeachment should wait for a conclusion and report by Mueller and his team.
Lucy McBath (GA-6) said she “would not call for impeaching Trump unless there was a bad report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of possible Russian influence on the 2016 presidential campaigns.” Reporting on Haley Stevens (MI-11) just three weeks prior to the 2018 midterms, The Detroit News declared,
Stevens takes a wait-and-see approach on possible impeachment hearings for Trump, saying that conversation depends on the outcome of special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry. “We need to see the Mueller investigation through,” Stevens said. “I believe we need to put the country first and certainly treat anything along those lines very seriously.”
In May of 2018, the Fort-Worth Star Telegram asked 22 Texas democrats running for U.S. Congress whether they would vote to impeach President Trump. Two democrats—Lizzie Pannill Fletcher and Colin Allred—flipped seats in Texas. When asked about impeachment, Ms. Fletcher declared, “Congress must ensure that [Mueller’s] investigation is completed, and that if President Trump has committed impeachable offenses must be prepared to bring the charge.” Allred added, “We need to make sure the Mueller probe is protected and that it’s able to reach its conclusion.”

Reporting on Jennifer Wexton (VA-10) last year ABC News noted,
Wexton was also cautious when discussing Trump and possible impeachment. A former prosecutor, she said she wants special counsel Robert Mueller to continue his work and that “we need to follow the facts and we can’t rush to judgment.”
Just days from the 2018 election, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill joined her New Jersey swing-district colleagues in calling for restraint on impeachment. She declared, “Congress should support Special Counsel Robert Muller’s investigation and allow him to finish his work.”

And so on. (I chronicle 2018 swing-district democrats on Trump, Mueller, and impeachment here.) Democrats flipped dozens of GOP-held seats because they painted themselves as rational, non-hyper-partisan candidates who would follow the facts—especially on impeachment. Now that Mueller’s report has further revealed the Trump-Russia-collusion farce for what it really was, these democrats must be held accountable to their words.

Furthermore, ever since the Mueller investigation began, there was a bi-partisan chorus of politicians telling us that the Mueller investigation should be “protected” and that Mueller must be “allowed to complete his work.” Of course, to a great extent this was because so many liberals and never-Trumpers were convinced that the end of the Mueller investigation would spell the end of the Trump administration.

Whether or not they felt that the Muller investigation would be the ultimate undoing of President Trump, many democrats put all of their impeachment eggs in the Mueller investigation basket. Leon Panetta—defense secretary and CIA director under Barack Obama and chief of staff to Bill Clinton—summed up this position well. Two months prior to the 2018 midterms, ABC News reported Panetta saying,
“I think the most important thing that the Democrats could do is to allow Bob Mueller to complete his work.” Panetta continued, “I think Bob Mueller’s work will ultimately determine whether or not there are going to be additional steps taken against the president and they ought not to get ahead of that report because that will be the key to determining what happens.”
Now that the collusion narrative has finally officially collapsed, impeachment-obsessed democrats must look elsewhere to satisfy their anti-Trump hate. Of course, as they chase this political unicorn, they only reinforce the notion that the Mueller investigation was never really about Russian collusion at all, but rather just a convenient means of undoing the results of the 2016 presidential election. In other words—as the actions of congressional democrats prove—it seems that the Mueller investigation was little more than a “witch-hunt” all along. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, March 14, 2019

Remember: Democrats Didn’t Take the House by Promising Impeachment

It seems Speaker Pelosi and her party are no longer on the same page. Mrs. Pelosi’s recent revelation that she’s “not for impeachment” directly contradicts the political priorities of many—if not most—on the American left. Recent actions by House Democrats make this clear. By most indications, number one on the liberal agenda is not national security, the economy, jobs, healthcare, education, abortion rights, or even the climate. The highest priority for many congressional democrats and their base is the impeachment of President Trump. As Byron York noted last week,
[Rep. Jerrold] Nadler’s talk with ABC was the clearest indication yet that Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved in making that happen. And that means the debate among House Democrats will be a tactical one — what is the best time and way to go forward — rather than a more fundamental discussion of whether the president should be impeached. 
On Monday morning Nadler released a list of 81 names of Trump associates from whom the Judiciary Committee is requesting documents in what Nadler called “the first steps of an investigation into the alleged corruption, obstruction, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates and members of his administration.” 
Other House Democrats are sending similar messages.
Of course, Nadler and his impeachment allies are only in this position because democrats wrested control of the U.S. House from republicans last November. With one seat in North Carolina still pending, in the 2018 midterms, the democrats had a net gain of 40 seats, giving them a total of 235 in the U.S. House. According to Ballotpedia’s election accounting, there were 82 so-called “battleground” U.S. House districts in the 2018 midterms. Of these 82 districts, 46 of them changed party hands. The democrats flipped 43 House districts while the GOP flipped only three.

To give a better picture of the partisan swing that occurred in the 2018 midterms, examine the Cook Partisan Voter Index (CPVI; a nice table is here). According to the CPVI, after the 2018 election, only one district (New York 24) rated D+3 or higher belongs to republicans. On the other hand, 22 districts rated R+3 or higher are now occupied by democrats. (Recall, the democrats needed to flip 23 seats to gain control of the U.S. House.) The democrats won nine districts that were rated R+6 or higher. In other words, democrats won more than a few seats in solidly republican districts.

In case you’ve forgotten—Mrs. Pelosi seems not to have—democrats gained control of the U.S. House not by promising, pledging, or even hoping to impeach President Trump. They could not have flipped as many GOP-leaning districts as they did with such a message. On the contrary, as memory serves, and as a few dozen internet searches would reveal, democrats gained control of the U.S. House by talking down impeachment, dismissing impeachment, or ignoring it altogether.

According to my research, of the 43 seats they flipped, only one victorious democrat—California’s Harley Rouda—made impeachment a priority of his winning campaign. Other than Rouda, even just days from the 2018 election, as the prospects of democrats retaking the House grew, I couldn’t find another democrat in those 43 races who was openly talking about impeachment. In fact, among such candidates, virtually without exception, impeachment was only discussed when the media brought it up.

The battleground districts won the easiest prove this the best. For example, Democrat Susan Wild won Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district (rated “D+1” by CPVI) by 10%. According to The Washington Post, in late August in a piece that notes how democrats “are avoiding the word” (impeachment), Wild declared, “I don’t want to see a two-year distraction.” She added, “I think, honestly, impeachment proceedings would obviously derail getting other things done in Congress.”

In the same piece, The Post notes that a day after Michael Cohen surrendered to the FBI and plead guilty to eight criminal charges, Wild “did not issue so much as a tweet” to mark the event—“joining other Democrats in swing districts with her silence.”

Jeff Van Drew (D) won New Jersey’s 2nd district (Rated R+1) by 7.7%. In late August of 2018, Van Drew spoke of working with President Trump. In an interview he declared,
[I]f Donald Trump is right about an issue that is going to affect my people in my district or in my state or in the United States of America, I will say he’s right… 
If Donald Trump was — or any president — was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and all a number of serious issues, then you have to look at that. But, I’m certainly not going there in my mind thinking, “Gee, I want to impeach Donald Trump. That’s what my job is.” It is not.
California’s 25th and 49th districts (rated “Even” and R+1 respectively) were won by Katie Hill (D) and Mike Levin (D) by 8.8% and 12.8%. As the Washington Free Beacon reported in early September of 2018,
California billionaire and political activist Tom Steyer has scheduled an October fundraiser for 9 Democratic challengers for seats in the U.S. House, most of whom have been silent on Steyer's pet issue of impeachment.

…Records searches for five of the nine candidates turned up no comment or position offered on the idea of impeaching President Trump, …Those candidates and their corresponding house district are Jessica Morse (CA-04), Josh Harder (CA-10), T.J. Cox (CA-21), Katie Hill (CA-25), and Mike Levin (CA-49).
In early October of 2018, in a debate Levin declared, “I do not seek impeachment.” Just a week out from the election, Katie Hill believed “Talk of impeaching President Donald Trump is a waste of time until Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is completed.”

“Let’s wait on Robert Mueller” was a common theme from battleground democrats. Jason Crow (D) beat five-term republican Mike Coffman in Colorado’s 6th district (rated D+2) by 11.2%. Just over a month prior to the 2018 election, The Colorado Sun reported,

Crow isn’t fully embracing calls from some in his party to seek Trump’s impeachment — at least not yet. He says he wants to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller digs up in his investigation into possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

Just days from the 2018 election, New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill—who won NJ-7 (rated R+3) by 14.7%—joined her New Jersey battleground colleagues in calling for restraint on impeachment. She declared, “Congress should support Special Counsel Robert Muller's investigation and allow him to finish his work.”

There are dozens of similar examples. I chronicle all of the flipped seats here, including democrats in what were deemed hotly contested U.S. House races, and their campaign position on impeaching President Trump. What’s more, even democratic leadership—including Mrs. Pelosi—were not fond of talking about impeachment while they were trying to take back the U.S. House and Senate.

With the Mueller investigation looking more and more like a dud and the Russia-Trump collusion farce being exposed for what it really is, many democrats now want to target President Trump’s finances as a means of impeachment. “Impeachment is the only answer,” says Maxine Waters—right, because nothing else has worked so far.

If collusion has truly collapsed, to pivot to Trump’s finances as an attempt to remove him from office only makes democrats appear as if their mouths remain filled with sour grapes over the 2016 election. A seasoned politician such as Mrs. Pelosi knows this all too well. Thus, avoiding impeachment is not a matter of President Trump not being “worth it.” It’s simply a matter of election math and politics. Speaker Pelosi may need to conduct some tutorials.

(See this piece at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, 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, March 12, 2019

Battleground House Democrats and Impeachment

The table below (looks better using Chrome and Safari--working on fixing that) shows the 43 House districts flipped by Democrats in the 2018 midterms along with the candidate who won and their campaign position on impeaching President Trump. It should go without saying that a single quote from one or two links does not make a political position. (Some of them are virtually silent on the matter, which, of course, is telling.) However, with each of the candidates below, the links and the quotes provided are indicative of the candidates overall position on impeachment of President Trump. The table below will be updated as necessary.

(Read: Remember: Democrats Didn’t Take the House by Promising Impeachment.)

Dem. Winner
Impeachment Views

(See link above)
(See link above)
(See link above)
(See link above)
(Spoke directly in favor of impeachment.)
(See link above)
NYT: “You, of course, are somebody who’s recently started advocating impeachment.” Shalala: “No, I have not. I have not.”
Would you vote to impeach the President?

Buzzfeed Headline: “Democrats Are Not Eager To Talk About Impeaching Trump”

When asked about impeaching Trump, Phillips refused to address the matter directly.
(See link above)
(See link above)
From a report on a forum with his opponent: “Neither candidate supported the impeachment of President Donald Trump, with Delgado saying that federal investigations into the president should be completed before any calls for action.”
Washington Post headline includes the phrase, “Democratic Candidates Are Avoiding the Word [Impeachment].” From the article: “‘I don’t want to see a two-year distraction,’ said Susan Wild, a Democrat who is favored to win a key Republican-held House seat in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. ‘I think, honestly, impeachment proceedings would obviously derail getting other things done in Congress.’”
(See link above)
“Virginia Politics” headline: “Hampton Roads congressmen said felony crimes by former Trump associates don’t mean impeachment is coming
From the article: Luria: “Any time there are allegations of wrong doing by people close to the president, it is troubling. But I have faith in our justice system and believe the Mueller investigation needs to continue until all the facts are presented.”

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America