Our Books

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

Our Books

Our Books
Books by Trevor Grant Thomas and Michelle Fitzpatrick Thomas

E-Mail Me:

NOTE: MY EMAIL ADDRESS HAS CHANGED! Trevor's new email address: trevorgrantthomas@gmail.com

Latest News/Commentary

Latest News/Commentary:

News/Commentary Archives:

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

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Election Repsonse

To borrow from Charles Krauthammer, this was not a rebuke, it was a restraining order. Many Americans simply want the Democrats to go away--far away. Many have characterized this as a rebuke of Obama, but I think it goes further than that. To a significant extent, liberalism was on trial and was found wanting. As of this writing, according to the Real Clear Politics numbers, republicans added seven seats in the U.S. Senate, with Alaska and Louisiana likely making the final result a +9 for the GOP, giving them a total of 54 Senate seats. The Republicans have added 13 seats in the House, with about a dozen races--almost all Democrat seats--still undecided. Most are projecting the Republicans to hold about 250 House seats.

Additionally, and I think certainly the most surprising outcome of the night, the GOP defied the odds and actually added to their gubernatorial total across the U.S. Wins in deep blue states such as Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland made such gains possible. At this point, with a couple of races yet to be called, Republicans now control 31 governor's mansions. According to Hot Air, "Republicans now control governorships and state legislatures in 24 states while Democrats control those in only 7 states."

Certainly the republicans are, minus occupying the White House, in perhaps the greatest position of political power they have ever experienced. We'll see what they do with it.

In closing, as I've implied before, whatever the outcome of any election, Christians should never be too elated or too downtrodden. Politics is a realm occupied by men and women, who will almost certainly let us down. This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in, or concerned with, politics. We most certainly should. However, we must live knowing that our hope is not in any individual or institution in this world. As S.M. Lockridge put it when it comes to the One Christians serve, "You can't impeach Him, and He's not going to resign."

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World


  1. "You can't impeach Him, and He's not going to resign."

    Hummm... I don't think you would offer that quote without the unspoken inference that it also applies to Obama (without capitalization of He).

    Funny, the GOP will soon hold the Senate, but likely will not even broach the subject of impeachment, even though the potential legal case against
    Obama FAR EXCEEDS the case made against Clinton. John Bohner has gone out of his way to assert previous suggestions of a lawsuit against Obama would NOT be impeachment. Why would he do that unless the concept of impeachment was forbidden by his party?

    "Many have characterized this as a rebuke of Obama, but I think it goes further than that. To a significant extent, liberalism was on trial and was found wanting."

    No. Neither liberal interests nor progressive causes were on trial here. If they were this time, then they were as well in the 2008 election when Obama rode progressive promises to victory. The problem is most of those promises were broken and ignored and allowed to die on the vine. People remember being stabbed in the back.

    Republicans won seats this past election by not being Barack Obama rather than not being democrats or progressives.

    Obama alone did this. He did it by NOT serving the interests of his constituents. He did it by NOT standing up for their causes. He did it by NOT fighting to defend the things they hold dear. These constituents repaid his indifference by staying home on election day.

    For instance, in 2012 there was a recall election against Scott Walker after he acted to strip union and worker's collective bargaining rights. Obama was asked but refused to go and take up that campaign cause for his base. The recall failed. Now Walker is talking of a presidential campaign. There is an old saying that one must strike while the iron is hot. Obama passed up the best chance to help dems be rid of Walker. In return many disillusioned dems passed up the chance to vote in the last election.

    Unfortunately, this was Obama's plan all along. Beat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 democrat primary. Keep Hillary out of the White House, then (appearing to be conciliatory) draw her close and cripple her with the Benghazi scandal, and finally do as little as possible for the party that voted him in on a promise of change.

    Obama's number one job was to protect Israel's interests, and he has done that at the UN, even going so far as to veto a UNSC resolution crafted to mirror his very own words spoken as a candidate on Israel's illegal settlement construction.

    Aside from protecting Israel at all costs, Obama has doubled down on the Bush administration's regime change agenda for Arab states. Oama has escalated regime change, and now euphemistically calls it "political transition". Gee thanks, Mr agent of change. Lastly, over the last 6 years Obama has generally sat on his hands and run out the clock on democratic aspirations. He has gently spun down expectations and used his office to guide democratic momentum off target.

    So here we are after the 2014 midterms, and Obama has announced he is quote "willing to work" with the new republican legislature. My opinion is Obama is now more likely to sign GOP legislation than he was before to promote legislation created under the democrat controlled senate. Several news articles indicate this democratic frustration existed between the Senate and the White House, including the link below:

    --Bob Woodward: Obama Relations with Senate Democrats as bad as with Republicans --

  2. Just one more:

    -- Ralph Nader: Obama the ’Executioner’ --

    In his new book, Ralph Nader calls for the end of “unconstitutional wars and unchecked militarism” — and lays blame on President Barack Obama for going beyond even George W. Bush.
    Nader writes in “Unstoppable” that Obama “has extended the Bush doctrine by declaring his unilateral right, as secret prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, to destroy anybody, anywhere in the world, including American citizens, suspected to be engaged in alleged terrorist activities, all this vaguely and loosely defined as anti-U.S. security.”

    He continues, “Inspired by the military actions of the Clinton administration, the Obama and Bush teams made a seamless transition into a militarized foreign policy, extending even further the illegal reach of wars of choice, invasions, incursions, and drone attacks, carried out irrespective of national sovereignties.”

    The consumer crusader’s new book also makes the case for a bipartisan effort to “dismantle the corporate state.”


    By the way, check out this site. The blogger here seems to be the political opposite of you, but his style is an exact match. His blog is one long tirade which addresses only a single political perspective, and seems to have no substantial rebuttal from outside commenters. Your cousin perhaps?

  3. As far as I know, there's no (close) relation. Interesting site.