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, 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, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48718341
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

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Violent Liberalism Strikes Again (Updated)

Again, guns don’t kill people, liberalism does. With the disturbing attack on congressional republicans who were gathered to practice for a charity baseball game, again we see virtually every perpetrator carrying out a sensational act of violence has one of two things in common: their lives are corrupted by either liberalism or Islam. With prominent American leftists mock-beheading President Trump, celebrating the on-stage assassination of the U.S. President, threatening to blow up the White House, and so on, few should be surprised that a Bernie Sanders supporter—who recently wrote “It’s Time To Destroy Trump & Co.”—armed with a gun, decided actually to carry out his evil liberal fantasy.

As others have already pointed out, the recent rhetoric of the modern left reeks of hate and violence, and as Townhall's Derek Hunter prophetically noted nearly two weeks ago, “The Left Won’t Rest Until Someone Gets Killed.” College campuses, which are replete with radical left-wingers young and old, are becoming more and more violent. In addition, most every protest or parade these days that is significantly populated by liberals almost always devolves into a vulgar hate-fest where angry leftists compete to, among other “nasty” things, see who can lob the most f-bombs.

And when someone corrupted by liberalism finally does take the violent rhetoric to its literal end, the reaction by liberals is as predictable as the sunrise: blame the weapon, usually guns. Just hours after Democratic Socialist James T. Hodgkinson fired dozens of rounds at the GOP baseball team (thankfully killing no one, but seriously injuring Majority Whip Steve Scalise), liberal politicians and pundits began blaming guns. Whether guns, blades, or bombs, when violent liberals and Islamists commit murder, liberals of every stripe ignore the ideology of their like-minded comrades to focus on instruments—especially guns.

As a telling anecdote, on the day of Hodgkinson’s assault against congressional members of the GOP, a comment from a liberal on my website sarcastically declared,
I don’t want to alarm you but there have been four shootings today and apparently none of them involves Islam and…People are saying it’s guns that did the shooting and killing, even though guns don’t kill people as you’ve proven here. I’m so confused!
My reply to the poor confused soul: “When a gun is arrested and charged, please let us know.”

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at such thinking. As modern liberals continue in their “struggle against reality,” with many seemingly unable to determine whether a person is a male or a female, perhaps such liberals are now so far divorced from reality that they can’t tell the difference between a person and a gun. Of course, it could be that I’m behind in my knowledge of the wide variety of ways with which people these days are choosing to “identify” themselves. Under a liberal worldview today, perhaps now it is acceptable for a human being to “identify” as a gun. (The late-great Jerry Clower probably had a story of a Ledbetter who had done such.)

To aid in their gun-control meme following Hodgkinson’s attack, it was not at all uncommon to stumble across the following in the liberal media: “The GOP baseball shooting is the 154th mass shooting this year.” Do a search for the exact phrase and see for yourself. Go here for the full list to which the frequently used headline refers. Granted, almost none of the violence listed is directly politically motivated. However, take note of the locations for the shootings.

As I noted in 2015, almost all deadly gun violence in the U.S. occurs in large cities where liberal politics, policies, and personal practices reign supreme. And as I (and subsequently others) recently noted, most violent criminals in the U.S.—especially those with the largest body counts—have two things in common: broken homes and/or sexual deviancy. Again, as they preach “Do What Thou Wilt” in the sexual realm and wage war on the biblical family model, we find liberals and liberalism complicit.

In addition, another act of dramatic gun violence leaves modern liberals longing for the ever-elusive gun- and religion-clinging right-wing shooter. Of course, the conservative Christian assassin or terrorist toting his rifle, his bombs, and his Bible is nothing more than a hopeful myth perpetually sought out by the left nearly every time one of these despicable events occurs.

And why is it that it is so rare to find an American whose politics is reliably conservative who will react violently as a result of his conservatism? Could it be that, like me, most conservatives in America are conservative in their politics as the result of a relationship with their Creator? Could it be that, because of our relationship with God, and because we are surrounded by loving families led by married mothers and fathers, along with a loving, truth-telling church community, our “moral chains” keep us from such violence? Could it be that most conservatives understand that the real solutions to what plagues us defy a government solution?

Of course those are exactly the reasons the Christian community is virtually devoid of such wicked violence. What’s more, when it comes to politics, most Christians know well that, even when we lose elections, all is not lost. We always have hope that whether in this world or the next, there are brighter days ahead. This stands in stark contrast to those who have made a god of government.

(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

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Guns Don’t Kill People, Liberalism and Radical Islam Do

After the recent attack on Manchester by Islamic terrorists, British author and journalist Douglas Murray provided a simple two-word suggestion for what help prevent future such violence in Great Britain: “less Islam.” To bolster his point, Murray pointed out that, “countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have very little Islam and very little Islamic terror. By contrast, France has a great amount of Islam and a great amount of Islamic terror.” Of course, Islamic apologists “promptly went bananas” (Murray’s words).

As we have seen for years now, and as recent events again demonstrate, “Islamic apologists” include not only those deceived by Islam, but also includes those deceived by liberalism as well. I say again, there are few greater threats to life, limb, and liberty in the world today than liberalism and Islam. Radical Islamists drive the vans, pull the triggers, slash the knives, strap on the bombs, cut off the heads, and so on, while radical liberals in the media and the state houses—among other dastardly and deadly things—provide the political cover for the slaughter to continue.

In spite of the obvious differences in their worldviews—the “Do What Thou Wilt” godless philosophy that dominates in modern liberalism vs. a rigid, uncompromising (and man-designed) religious code that dominates radical Islam—both share a common trait that deceives one (liberals) into thinking that the other (radical Islam) can be “tolerated:” a disdain for Christianity.

Millions of Christians and other such “apostates” (tens of millions by some estimates) continue to die at the hands of Islamists. For one of the worst examples (one the media often ignores), according to Africa: The Holocausts of Rwanda and Sudan,
Well over two million southern black Christians, Muslims, and animists in the Sudan have died, the great majority civilians, in a genocide that few in the world have heard about. Since 1983, ethnic cleansing and a religious holy jihad (since 1992) have created a holocaust that rival the two great genocides in Europe (the Holocaust and Stalin’s Gulag)…In the Nuba Mountains the Arab Muslim fundamentalists practiced an age-old custom of taking blacks into slavery, forcing conversion of many to Islam, and then decided to wipe out the fifty tribes by genocide, similar to the situation in Darfur in the west.
Tragically, modern liberals are so desperate to rid the world of Christians and Christianity that they will tolerate almost anything, except authentic Christianity. What’s more, as the violence from radical Islamists rages on (and on, and on), time and again, liberal pundits and politicians, as they are forced to address the bloodshed—and after even their own are murdered—go to absurd lengths to avoid even the hint of a mention of Islam. As Daniel Greenfield put it after knife-wielding Muslims rampaged London, “Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, ‘This is for Islam.’”

Of course, after yet another round of killing in the name of Islam, godless liberals also give us the obligatory—and lazily idiotic assertion that—when it comes to “violence in the name of religion” the “Christians did it too!” To liberals, all religious extremists are equal, though, when one honestly compares radical Christianity with radical Islam, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, when it comes to killing the innocent, violent religious extremists of any flavor could learn a thing or two from the violent anti-religious extremists that dominate the modern left. The greatest murderers in the history of humanity were the godless socialists and communists of the 20th century. As renowned scholar, educator, and author Walter E. Williams notes,
Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China’s communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. The most authoritative tally of history’s most murderous regimes is documented on University of Hawaii professor Rudolph J. Rummel’s website and in his book “Death by Government.”
Multiple sources, including professor Rummel, conclude that, in the past century, atheistic regimes worldwide have led to the deaths of tens-of-millions, with some sound estimates putting the total number of deaths at more than 250,000,000!

Very often, the drive to kill was an effort to purge religion—especially Christianity—from the state. Even Wikipedia notes that the slaughter in the Soviet Union started with multiple “anti-religious” campaigns that began in the early 1920s, where “new legislation…severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism.” In 1937 alone, more than 85,000 Russian Orthodox priests were executed.

Though there are certainly distinctions between the godless socialists and communists of the 20th century and the European and North American liberals of today, there are also very scary similarities. In his mid-19th century Critique of Socialism, Alexis de Tocqueville summarized well the ideology of socialism when he wrote,
They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom [a medieval form of bondage].
Sounds much like the efforts of modern liberals doesn’t it? And even when they claim to be champions of “personal freedom”—as is often their cry when it comes to everything to do with matters in the sexual realm—modern liberalism is still filled with violence and bondage. With nearly 60 million unborn children killed since 1973, U.S. abortion-supporting liberals must be the envy of genocidal maniacs the world over. American abortionists have managed to turn what should be one of the safest places in the universe—a mother’s womb—into a killing field. Worldwide, since 1980, a staggering 1.5 billion children have been aborted.

In addition, guided by the false belief that “Do What Thou Wilt” (especially in the sexual realm) frees us from the shackles of the “antiquated” ideas on morality and personal ethical behavior, liberalism has set about to discredit and abandon many of the eternal and inescapable absolute truths set down by our Creator that should be the cornerstones of all good government. Thus, almost any sexual perversion imaginable is, in the U.S. today, a “right.” And instead of being free, tens of millions of Americans are now slaves to their sexual desires. As a result, STD rates in the U.S. have reached record, epidemic rates.

Of course, just as there are many Muslims who are not terrorists, there are many liberals who are not Christian-hating, terrorist-tolerating, sex-crazed abortionists. However, just as the world’s greatest problem with violent terrorism lies within Islam, the world’s biggest problem with godless, pleasure-peddling statists lies within liberalism.

(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

Saturday, June 3, 2017

Nancy Pelosi: Hypocrite Extraordinaire

In the Sermon on the Mount, warning His listeners against hypocrisy, Jesus declared:
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Blind to the logs in her own eyes, false prophetess Nancy Pelosi concluded that President Trump’s wise decision to withdraw the United States from the corrupt Paris climate accord dishonored God and was a “disservice” to his children and grandchildren. In other words, in her weekly press conference, a woman who for decades has defended and promoted the practice of killing children in the womb, decided to lecture the President of the United States, and the country at large, on what dishonors God.

Why would anyone trust anything Nancy Pelosi said about "dishonor" or God?

In a sad attempt to push the economically devastating climate agenda of the modern left, a woman who is a destroyer of marriage as God gave it to us, and who is a staunch supporter of the perverse homosexual agenda used the phrase “moral responsibility” four times in the span of seven sentences. Is there a politician in all of the United States less qualified to discuss "moral responsibility" than Nancy Pelosi? 

Furthermore, a woman who is a leader in the political party that, all of a sudden, can’t seem to decide what is a male and what is a female, wants us to buy what she and her party are attempting to sell us about the magnificently complex matter of global climate science. Here's a hint libs: If you want people to take you seriously when discussing the climate, how about stop ignoring biology that has been clear for time immemorial?

Of course, her liberal pals joined her in her hypocrisy, whining and wailing about President Trump’s climate conclusion. For many of them it was truly a pathetic display of the worst hyperbole. This shtick by the climate faithful is really beginning to wear thin, but if nothing else, it again reminds us why Mr. Trump won.

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

Friday, June 2, 2017

Zuckerberg vs. Zuckerberg

Would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2017—who recently gave the commencement address at Harvard—have started Facebook? Likewise, would the Mark Zuckerberg of 2004—who was instrumental in building the world’s largest, most popular social networking website in the world—have given the 2017 commencement address at Harvard University?

As has been well documented over the last several days—most notably by Rush Limbaugh—Zuckerberg’s 2017 commencement address was laden with socialistic language and ideas that run quite contrary to what is necessary to build a company with thousands of employees and whose annual revenue is measured in billions of dollars. (Ask Venezuelans.)

For example, 2017 Mark Zuckerberg told Harvard graduates that it’s time we get about “redefining equality to give everyone the freedom they need to pursue purpose.” Yet the 2003-2004 Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t too keen on the notion of “equality” when he intentionally delayed a social networking project—Harvard Connection—he had agreed to work on for fellow classmates while a student at Harvard—the project that at least gave him some of his inspiration for Facebook—in order to complete first his own personal project that would directly compete with his classmates’ project.

As Zuckerberg would declare to classmate Eduardo Saverin in an IM (instant message):
Check this site out: www.harvardconnection.com and then go to harvardconnection.com/datehome.php. Someone is already trying to make a dating site. But they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I'm like delaying it so it won't be ready until after the facebook thing comes out.
In another IM exchange with his high school friend Adam D’Angelo, Zuckerberg would reveal that he was contemplating whether he was going to “f*ck the dating site [a reference to Harvard Connect] people over and quit on them right before I told them I’d have it done.” In the same IM exchange, weighing whether to complete Harvard Connect, Zuckerberg declared,
I also hate the fact that I'm doing it for other people haha. Like I hate working under other people. I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I’m supposed to have their thing ready and then be like “look yours isn’t as good as this so if you want to join mine you can…otherwise I can help you with yours later.”
Weeks later, just prior to meeting with the Harvard Connect people, in another IM with a friend, Zuckerberg reveals how he has decided to resolve his conflict with the competing projects:
Friend: So have you decided what you're going to do about the websites?
Zuck: Yeah, I'm going to f*ck them
How very corporately ruthless of him. In other words, the very project that made Mr. Zuckerberg tremendously wealthy and famous, the project that allowed him—a Harvard dropout—the opportunity to give Harvard’s 2017 commencement address was not born out of some leftist notion of “equality.” Of course, Zuckerberg’s personal project would become Facebook and would quickly spell the end of Harvard Connection (later ConnectU) and all similar social networking websites. Not very “equal,” huh?

The story of Facebook’s founding and the relationship between Zuckerberg, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra is well documented and simply does not jive with socialist drivel Zuckerberg spewed in his recent Harvard address. In case you were unaware, or have forgotten, Zuckerberg’s conflict with his competing Harvard classmates went on for years, well past 2004 and the launch of Facebook and the now defunct Harvard Connect.

To this day, Zuckerberg—rightfully so, I think—rejects the notion that he “stole” the idea and any “source code” for Facebook from the Harvard Connect project, and that Winklevoss twins and Narendra are (or were) somehow “equal” partners in Facebook. (Though they were not recognized as “equal” partners in Facebook, because of their lawsuit against Zuckerberg and Facebook, and a settlement worth tens of millions of dollars, the Winklevoss twins and Narendra also made out quite well, themselves.)

Yet, it wasn’t only against the Winklevoss twins and Mr. Narendra that Mr. Zuckerberg acted rather “capitalistically.” In early 2004, prior to the February 4 launch of what was then “TheFacebook.com,” Zuckerberg acknowledged that, because he thought it would (GASP!) “make money,” another fellow Harvard classmate—Eduardo Saverin—provided $15,000 for the original servers necessary for TheFacebook.com. Saverin’s initial investment netted him a 30% stake in the project.

According to Business Insider, “By April, the site was doing so well that Mark, Eduardo, and a third Harvard sophomore named Dustin Muskovitz formed The Facebook as a limited-liability company (LLC) under Florida law.” In June of 2004, Zuckerberg and Muskovitz dropped out of Harvard and moved to Palo Alto, California to work on TheFacebook.com full time. Saverin remained at Harvard and was to work on three things: “to set up the company, get funding, and make a business model.”

The relationship between TheFacebook.com and Saverin quickly cooled. It was the issue of funding that defined the divide between Zuckerberg and Saverin. Soon after arriving in Palo Alto, Zuckerberg and Muskovitz ran into Sean Parker. Parker was best known for cofounding Napster, the extremely popular internet file-sharing (especially music) service. Parker was soon installed as TheFacebook’s president. His chief responsibility was to do what Saverin apparently wasn’t: find investors.

Parker secured Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal, as TheFacebook’s first big investor. Thiel put up $500,000 and Saverin was deemed “expendable.” To rid themselves of Saverin, Parker proposed Zuckerberg employ some “dirty tricks” used by Thiel and other well-known big-time tech investors. Zuckerberg agreed.

The plan, again, according to Business Insider:
Reduce Eduardo's stake in TheFacebook.com by creating a new company, a Delaware corporation, to acquire the old company (the Florida LLC formed in April), and then distribute new shares in the new company to everybody but Eduardo.
Very much in line with the idea of “wealth inequality”—and quite contrary to Zuckerberg’s Harvard address—the plan was carried out and Saverin’s stake in the company went from 30% to less than 10%. As Business Insider put it, “Mark’s plan had succeeded. Eduardo was, for all intents and purposes, gone.”

Whatever or whoever Mr. Zuckerberg is today, his Harvard speech was anything but surprising. If it wasn’t already so, Zuckerberg has now made clear that—after having employed and personally benefitted from the forces of capitalism—what worked for him is not for everyone else. He is firmly entrenched in the long and growing list of modern liberal-activist CEOs who feel, as Kevin Williamson recently put it, “obliged to act as public intellectuals as well as business managers.” The main job of these “public intellectuals” is to promote the liberal agenda—especially when it comes to the moral issues.

As Williamson also notes—and as Zuckerberg makes clear—many of our modern capitalists are “not much interested in defending the culture of capitalism,” but instead favor a “collectivist view of the world.” Of course, this view also embraces the notion that political power should rest in the hands of the “progressive” few. After all, “The decisions they have made for themselves have turned out well, so why not empower them, or men like them, to make decisions for other people, too?”

(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