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):

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

You Want Better Government, Embrace the Biblical Family

As Baltimore, and most recently Seattle, became the latest examples of the disgusting fruit of liberalism in America, it is becoming more and more difficult for liberals to explain away the devastation that their politics and policies have wrought. This devastation extends far beyond the burned police cars, broken windows, looted businesses, and even beyond the violence suffered by the human targets of riotous thugs. As I recently noted, such mayhem will continue in cities and towns all across the U.S. where liberalism is entrenched.

As Baltimore burned, an abundance of pundits correctly took the opportunity to call it like it was (and is). “After festering for half a century,” wrote Roger L. Simon, “we're witnessing the endgame of LBJ's Great Society.” At National Review, Kevin Williamson explained, “American cities are by and large Democratic-party monopolies, monopolies generally dominated by the so-called progressive wing of the party. The results have been catastrophic, and not only in poor black cities such as Baltimore and Detroit.”

At the New York Daily News, S.E. Cupp noted how slow and opaque was Hillary Clinton when it came time to weigh in on the Baltimore fiasco. Said Cupp, “Clinton’s reticence to discuss race hints at the glaring reality that Democrats simply don’t have the answers on how to end the growing inequality that creates the distrust and civil unrest we’ve seen in Missouri and Maryland.

“If any city is an example of the failures of liberal policies — from the economy to education to unemployment — it’s Baltimore, which has had a Democratic mayor for the last 48 years.

“For decades, the city’s political elite has thrown billions at development projects that were somehow meant to trickle out toward Baltimore’s impoverished areas, but that hasn’t happened.”

David French chimed in, declaring that “Blue America has failed at social justice. It has failed at equality. It has failed at accountability. Its competing constituencies are engaged in street battles, and any exploration of ‘root causes’ must necessarily include decades of failed policies — all imposed by steadfastly Democratic mayors and city leaders.”

Even the liberals at The Daily Beast pointed out how “America’s Cities Mirror Baltimore’s Woes.” Here, author Joel Kotkin noted that “the average poverty rate in the historical core municipalities in the 52 largest U.S. metro areas remains at 24.1 percent, more than double the 11.7 percent rate in suburban areas.” Kotkin goes so far as to declare that the Reagan era “was pretty good for blacks, if not for their leaders. Even as poverty spending growth slowed, the poverty rate dropped in the Reagan years to around 30 percent for African-Americans.” Kotkin concludes, “Clearly an improved economy is more important than ramping up social spending.”

Yet, when looking for “answers” or “root causes,” ramping up social spending is nearly always the liberal answer to most any social ill. Whether burning cities, rampant crime, massive unemployment, or failing schools, liberals always seek the same solution: more taxpayer money.

After the Baltimore riots, President Obama lamented that, though “there’s a bunch of my agenda that would make a difference right now,” under the current Congress, he would not get the “massive investments in urban communities” necessary to enact such an agenda. Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD) parroted the typical liberal drivel to Chris Wallace and declared that, in Baltimore, there needed to be more investment in education and “economic development.” Never mind that Baltimore was already spending the third highest per capita in the U.S. on its pitiful government schools.

Do you know what is the best predictor of academic success? Family success. Do you know what is one of the “most significant factors in determining whether a community offers low-income children hope of economic mobility?” According to a new study by two Harvard professors, it’s the presence of two parent families.

In spite of their best efforts to ignore or explain away what common sense and sound morality have always revealed, a few liberals are finally coming around to the notion that the biblical family model actually produces good results. So we’re finally going to see liberals cease their war on the family, right? Hardly.

While acknowledging the advantages of the traditional (biblical) family model, instead of promoting the oldest institution in human history, some liberals have recently gone so far as to suggest that in order to eliminate the “unfairness in society,” we need to abolish the family. In a profile of two British political philosophers, Australia’s ABC points out that “So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families. The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time.” In other words, these academics are merely advocating that liberals do what they so often do: if you can’t beat it, destroy it.

Ahh, but that’s just those crazy liberals across the pond. Such would never happen in America. Wrong. Even when their own attempted a campaign to highlight the link between things like out-of-wedlock births and poverty, liberals determined to hold to their orthodoxy, blasted these efforts, declaring “This campaign seems laser-focused on shaming already struggling teen parents or, ludicrously, convincing teens not to get pregnant because really bad things will happen.” Because, you know, it’s “ludicrous” to teach young people the negative consequences of sex outside of marriage.

For decades now, liberals in America have preached and promoted policies, and of course passed legislation, that has done nothing but wrought havoc on the biblical family model. Everything from the welfare state to abortion, pornography, promiscuity, homosexuality, a perverse redefinition of marriage, and the like, has undermined God’s design for the family.

Sadly, libertarians more concerned with personal pleasure than with good government (“Libertarians of Convenience” as some call them), have decided that the moral arguments they so favor when it comes to the welfare state and the like, simply don’t apply when it comes to abortion, pornography, homosexuality, marriage, and similar such issues.

As I’ve noted before, “Strong and healthy marriages lead to strong and healthy families. Strong and healthy families lead to strong and healthy communities. Strong and healthy communities lead to strong and healthy churches, schools, businesses, governments, and so on. Each of these institutions lies at the heart of any great nation.” In other words, the biblical family model is at the heart of good government. When the family is abandoned, chaos and anarchy reign. And what is so often the “solution” to such chaos? Bigger and more powerful government.

If you want good (and smaller) government, then you better support all efforts that promote the biblical family model.

Copyright 2015, 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. Pardon me for asking, but does someone pay you to write these obnoxious, bigoted, diatribes? I used to think it was merely theological masturbation, but you go to it so consistently and with such poor rational argument and logic I have to wonder if there's a paycheck associated with these crude smears. So does it pay you beyond the obvious gratuitous partisan stimulation?

    Some quotes:
    "It is becoming more and more difficult for liberals to explain away the devastation that their politics and policies have wrought. This devastation extends far beyond the burned police cars, broken windows, looted businesses, and even beyond the violence suffered by the human targets of riotous thugs. As I recently noted, such mayhem will continue in cities and towns all across the U.S. where liberalism is entrenched."

    Hummm... you mentioned Detroit as an example city. Would you care to explain how collapse of the local auto manufacturing industry due to corporate decisions to offshore production (illustrated in Michael Moore's "Roger And Me") led to a collapse in real estate property values, white flight, a corresponding flight of economic investment capital and implosion of the tax base, -which has made the town generally poor, black, and latino, -is a result of progressive politics? It sounds to me like a direct result of greedy corporate decisions made by a bunch of rich, white republican guys in the investment class (read top 2 percent). You know, people like Mitt Romney's dad George. I think it's strange you would miss that point with your economic expertise. So considering my point above and the necessity for corporate diligence regarding the public interest, did auto manufacturers and corporate America fail at social justice, fail at equality, and fail at accountability?

    And if you want to suggest that "biblical families" are an answer to the age-old problem of civil unrest and social violence, then apparently you're not familiar with the Old Testament. Plenty of violence there, but you seem to have overlooked it. Would the descendants of Jacob have looked any different as they marched with Joshua to rape and pillage the kingdoms and villages of Canaan? By your standard, was that progressive or conservative violence?

    Quote of your reference citation:
    "If any city is an example of the failures of liberal policies -from the economy to education to unemployment -it’s Baltimore, which has had a Democratic mayor for the last 48 years."

    For your readers who have not seen our prior discussion where I pointed out just how white and republican the government of Ferguson Missouri was, this comment might actually mean something. However, my point is if you want to appear credible, rational, and logical, you can't cite problems associated with progressive governments without also acknowledging problems associated with white, conservative republican governments. Here's the link to our prior discussion where you ducked my rebuttal on your Baltimore and Ferguson Missouri comments:

    And by the way, someone should point out the fact not every progressive city is a failure. Better examples include San Francisco, Boston Mass, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and New York, NY.

    And lastly, can conservatives really give us a "smaller government" that still maintains 662 overseas military bases in 38 foreign countries? I think your argument is disingenuous.

  2. I'd like to expand on my rebuttal regarding your inference that if *only* the citizens of Baltimore had rejected liberalism and elected a conservative government, then they wouldn't be having the problems you have cited. The short answer is there *was* a conservative, white, republican government in Ferguson, Missouri, and it didn't solve a single one of the problems that citizens there had to endure.

    In fact, a DOJ review concluded the conservative, white, republican government of Ferguson created a police force and justice system that functioned in a predatory role to preferentially pull over and harass blacks and minorities, -writing citations for even the smallest infraction that were used in the city court to harvest maximum revenues to prop up city coffers as the tax base shrank and real estate values plummeted during the national economic collapse. All of that happened under a white, conservative, republican government.

    By the way, this was ALSO the case in North Charleston, S.C. where the mayor and chief of police were white and republican; and where a black man named Walter Scott was pulled over by a white policeman named Michael Slager for having an inoperative "third" brake light. This would be the small light at the top of the cab, usually placed on the inside of the rear window. The primary brake and signal lights at the rear left and right corners of the car were apparently operating normally.

    This fits the profile of a typical fishing expedition, wherein the policeman pulls over a car for the slightest legal excuse, and does so primarily because the driver is either black or a minority. You see, it's easy to squeeze money out of poor people who are legally powerless and politically disenfranchised. Conservatives know this and take advantage to exploit them for that purpose. This key aspect of the stories is one thing you and the right-wing smear merchants of the internet are NOT talking about. Still, it is a critical insight to fully understanding the problem.

    I say this on the assumption that you actually do want your readers to understand the issues, and not just parrot neocon talking points and partisan red meat usually served up here.

  3. Even though we disagree Kiev, I always appreciate your thorough efforts. Although, you might want to rethink your notion that Ferguson was run by conservatives.

  4. Ok, your point on the make-up of the government of Ferguson has been officially noted.

    However, comparing the "Brooks Brother's Riots" in FL to what erupted in Ferguson, Baltimore, et al is laughable. First of all, no laws were broken in FL. Secondly, there was no real violence to speak of. And thirdly, no property was destroyed. Thus, the BB "Riots" were far more protest than "riots." Even rabid liberals admit that the Democrats merely got politically "out-hustled" in FL in 2000.

  5. Perhaps it is laughable. Call me crazy. I did refer to it as an unproven pet conspiracy theory.

    However, my point is not related to the presence or absence of violence. My point is that the GOP is proven to be willing to repeatedly pose under false pretenses in order to fool and mislead the public in service of their political agenda. This is a tactic called a false flag operation.

    THEREFORE, it is at least possible that the typical rise in violent behavior of street protests after a couple of days of relative calm is a result of outside provocateurs intentionally shipped in to serve a manipulative political agenda. Who is behind the tactic in these specific cases remains unknown. Still, the fact that we have caught the GOP red handed at least twice in other cases speaks volumes about the possibility of involvement here.

    And as long as I'm on a (crazy) roll, I'll suggest the GOP ran a false flag candidate as a democrat in the 2008 presidential election and won. That might explain why so many progressive democrats are disappointed by Obama and why the GOP bends over backwards pretending to hate him but always stops short of impeachment. Regards.