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):

Saturday, May 25, 2024

Failed Apocalyptic Climate Predictions From 42 Years Ago (Featuring (Who Else?!): Dan Rather and Al Gore)

Two of our lifetime's most notorious merchants of fake news--Dan Rather and Al Gore--were peddling their garbage climate alarmism 42 years ago! Watch:

Of course, the thing to note here is that NONE OF THIS HAPPENED! NONE. OF. IT! (Sea levels around the world are stable; Antarctic ice has not significantly melted; Florida has lost virtually none of its coastline; U.S. crop production hit record levels in 2023.) Yet Al Gore and his ilk are still treated as serious minds with serious opinions and informed facts when it comes to the climate change scam. Climate change is the perfect grift for Big Government apologists like Rather and Gore. This is because it is the world-changing "crisis" that is always just around the corner, requiring immediate government action! And Democrats like Rather and Gore can virtually "never let a crisis (even a repeatedly ever-looming one!) go to waste!" 

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, May 11, 2024

Winston Marshall Educates the Global Elites on Populism

At the Oxford Union recently, the UK's Winston Marshall--former lead guitarist of Mumford and Sons--gave an excellent, very public thrashing to the global elites, including including the Democrat Party and Nancy Pelosi, who was present at the debate. Mr. Mumford defended populism and called out the real threats to democracy worldwide. 

Below is the video of Mr. Mumford's remarks. A full transcript of his speech is below the video.


Winston Marshall: Ladies and gentlemen, words have a tendency to change meaning. When I was a boy, woman meant someone who didn’t have a cock. Populism has become a word used synonymously with racist, we’ve heard ethnonationalist, we’ve bigot, with hillbilly, red neck, with deplorables. Elites use it to show their contempt for ordinary people. This is a recent change, not Not long ago, Barack Obama, while still President at the North America’s Leaders Summit in June 2016, he took umbrage of the notion that Trump be called a populist. How could Trump be called a populist? He doesn’t care about working people. If anything, Obama argued he was the populist. If anything, Obama argued Bernie was the populist. It was Bernie who’d spent five decades fighting for working people.

But with Trump… Something curious happens. If you watch Obama’s speeches after that point, more and more recently, he uses the word populist interchangeably with strong man, with authoritarian. The word changes meaning it becomes a negative, a pejorative, a slur. To me, populism is not a dirty word.

Since the 2008 crash, and specifically the trillion dollar Wall Street bailout, we are in the populist age. And for good reason, the elites have failed. Let me address some common fallacies, some of which have been made tonight. If the motion was that demagoguery was a threat to democracy, I would be on that side of the If the motion was that political violence was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the House.

January sixth has been mentioned, a dark day for America indeed. I’m sure Congresswoman Pelosi will agree that the entire month of June 2020, when the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, was under siege and under insurrection by radical progressives, those two were dark days for America. Yes?

Nancy Pelosi: It’s not. There is no equivalence there. It is not like what happened on January 6th which was an insurrection…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. It’s fine. You don’t agree…

Winston Marshall: So you don’t agree. But you’ll condemn those days. My point, though, is that all political movements are susceptible to violence and indeed, insurrection. And if we were arguing that fascism was a threat to democracy, I’d be on that side of the house. Indeed, the current populist age is a movement against fascism. I’ve got quite a lot to get through. Populism, as you know, is the politics of the ordinary people against an elite.

Populism is not a threat to democracy. Populism is democracy. And why else have universal suffrage if not to keep elites in check? Ladies and gentlemen, given the success of Trump, and more recently, Javier Mallet taking a chainsaw to the state behemoth of Argentina’s bureaucratic monster, you’d be mistaken for thinking this was a right wing populist age. But that would be ignoring Occupy Wall Street.

That would be ignoring Jeremy Corbin’s For the Many, Not the Few. That would be ignoring Bernie against the Billionaires, RFK Jr. Against Big Pharma, and more recently, George Galloway against his better judgment. Now, all of them, including Galloway, recognize genuine concerns of ordinary people being otherwise ignored by the establishment.

I’m actually rather surprised that our esteemed opposition, Congressman Pelosi, is on that side of the motion. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-elite. I thought the left was supposed to be anti-establishment. Today, particularly in America, the globalist left have become the establishment. I suppose for Ms. Pelosi to have taken this side of the motion, she’d be arguing herself out of a job. But it’s here in Britain where right and left populists united for the Supreme Act of democracy, Brexit. Polls have shown the number one reason people voted for Brexit was sovereignty for more democracy. Thank you. What was the response of the Brussels elite?

They did everything in their power to undermine the democratic will of the British people, and the Westminster elite were just as disgraceful. As we’ve heard, David Cameron called the voters Fruitcakes, Loonies, and Closet Racists. The liberal Democrats did everything they could to overturn a democratic vote. Kirstama(?) campaigned for a second referendum.

Elites would have us voting and voting and voting until we voted their way. Indeed, that’s what happened in Ireland and in Denmark. Let’s look at some of the other populist movements. The Hong Konger populist Revolt is literally called the Pro-Democracy Movement. The Pharma Revolt, from Netherlands to Germany, France, Greece to Sri Lanka, are taking their tractors to the road to protest ESG policy that’s floated down to us from those all-knowing infallible elites of Davos. 

The trucker movement in Canada became anti-elitist when petty tyrant Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze their bank accounts, not the behavior of a democratic head of state. The gilets jaunes in France, Ulez in London, working people, protesting policy that hurt them. And how are they treated? They’re called conspiracy theorists. They’re called far-right by the mayor as well. Ladies and gentlemen, populism is the voice of the voiceless. The real threat to democracy is from the elites. Now, don’t get me wrong, we need elites.

If-when President Biden has shown us anything, we need someone to run the countries. When the President has severe dementia, it’s not just America that crumbles, the whole world burns. But let’s examine the elites. European corporations spend over €1 billion a year lobbying Brussels. U.S. corporations spend over €2 billion a year lobbying in DC.

Two-thirds of Congress receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer alone spent €11 million in 2021. They made over $10 billion in profit. No wonder then that 66% of Americans think the economy is rigged against them for the rich and the powerful. And by the way, we used to have a word for when big business and big government were in cahoots. 

Let me read you some mainstream media headlines:
  • The New Yorker the day before the 2016 election, “The Case Against Democracy.”
  • The Washington Post, the day after the election, “The problem with our government is democracy.”
  • The LA Times, June 2017, “The British election is a reminder of the perils of too much democracy.”
  • Vox, June 2017. “The two eminent political scientists say the problem with democracy is voters.”
  • New York Times, June 2017. “The problem with participatory democracy is the participants.”
Mainstream media elites are part of a class who don’t just disdain populism, they disdain the people. If the Democrats had put half their energy into delivering for the people, Trump wouldn’t even have a chance in 2024. He shouldn’t, he shouldn’t have a chance.

You’ve had power for four years. From the fabricated Steele Dossier to trying to take him off the ballot in both Maine and Colorado, the Democrats are the anti-Democrat Party. All we need now is the Republicans to come out as the pro-monarchist party. 

Ladies and gentlemen, populism is not a threat to democracy, but I’ll tell you what is. It’s elites ordering social media to censor political opponents. It’s police shutting down dissenters, be it anti-monarchists in this country or gender critical voices here, or last week in Brussels, the National Conservatives Movement.

I’ll tell you what is a threat to democracy. It’s Brussels, DC, Westminster, the mainstream media, big tech, big pharma, corporate collusion, and the Davos cronies.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off ordinary people as deplorable.

The threat to democracy comes from those who smear working people as racist.

The threat to democracy comes from those who write off working people as populists.

And I’ll say one last thing. This populist age can be brought to an end at the snap of a finger. All that needs to be done is for elites to start listening to, respect it, respecting, and, God forbid, working for ordinary people. Thank you.

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, May 8, 2024

Antonin Scalia Got It Right on The Holocaust

Below is the transcript of the speech Justice Antonin Scalia gave to the U.S. Congress on Holocaust Remembrance Day, 1997. (Watch the video of the speech here.) The speech can be summed up with this: Knowledge, power, riches, and "culture" mean nothing without virtue. In other words, modern "progressivism" does not equal progress. If an individual, a group, or a nation wants real and lasting success in this world, then they must do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. 

Distinguished members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives; members of the Diplomatic Corps; survivors of the Holocaust; ladies and gentlemen:

I was profoundly honored to have been invited to speak at this annual ceremony in remembrance of those consumed in the Holocaust. But it is not, I must tell you, an easy assignment for a non-Jew to undertake. I am an outsider speaking to an ancient people about a tragedy of unimaginable proportions that is intensely personal to them. I have no memories of parents or children, uncles or cousins caught up in and destroyed by the horror. I have not even that distinctive appreciation of evil that must come from knowing that six million people were killed for no other reason than that they had blood like mine running in their veins.

More difficult still, I am not only not a Jew, but I am a Christian, and I know that the anti-Semitism of many of my uncomprehending co-religionists, over many centuries, helped set the stage for the mad tragedy that the National Socialists produced. I say uncomprehending co-religionists, not only because my religion teaches that it is wrong to hate anyone, but because it is particularly absurd for a Christian to hate the people of Israel. That is to hate one’s spiritual parents, and to sever one’s roots.

When I was a young man in college, spending my junior year abroad, I saw Dachau. Later, in the year after I graduated from law school, I saw Auschwitz. I will of course never forget the impression they made upon me. If some playwright or novelist had invented such a tale of insanity and diabolical cruelty, it would not be believed. But it did happen. The one message I want to convey today is that you will have missed the most frightening aspect of it all, if you do not appreciate that it happened in one of the most educated, most progressive, most cultured countries in the world.

The Germany of the late 1920s and early 1930s was a world leader in most fields of art, science, and intellect. Berlin was a center of theater; with the assistance of the famous producer Max Reinhardt, playwrights and composers of the caliber of Bertolt, Brecht[,] and Kurt Weill flourished. Berlin had three opera houses, and Germany as a whole had no less than eighty. Every middle-sized city had its own orchestra. German poets and writers included Hermann Hesse, Stefan George, Leonhard Frank, Franz Kafka, and Thomas Mann, who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929. In architecture, Germany was the cutting edge, with Gropius and the Brauhaus [S]chool. It boasted painters like Paul Klee and Oskar Schlemmer. Musical composers like Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Paul Hindemith. Conductors like Otto Klemperer, Bruno Walter, Erich Kleiber, and Wilhelm Furtwängler. And in science, of course, the Germans were preeminent. To quote a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association:
“In 1933, when the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany, the biomedical enterprise in that country was among the most sophisticated in the world. German contributions to biochemistry, psychology, medicine, surgery, and public health, as well as to clinical training, had shaped into an important degree the academic and practice patterns of the time, and clinical training and research experience in the great German clinics and laboratories had been widely sought for decades by physicians and basic scientists from around the world.”
To fully grasp the horror of the Holocaust, you must imagine (for it probably happened) that the commandant of Auschwitz or Dachau, when he had finished his day’s work, retired to his apartment to eat a meal that was in the finest good taste, and then to listen, perhaps, to some tender and poignant lieder of Franz Schubert.

This aspect of the matter is perhaps so prominent in my mind because I am undergoing, currently, the task of selecting a college for the youngest of my children – or perhaps more accurately, trying to help her select it. How much stock we place in education, intellect, cultural refinement! And how much of our substance we are prepared to expend to give our children the very best opportunity to acquire education, intellect, cultural refinement! Yet those qualities are of only secondary importance – to our children, and to the society that their generation will create. I am reminded of words written by John Henry Newman long before the Holocaust could ever be imagined.
“Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another; good sense is not conscience, refinement is not humility. . . . Liberal Education makes . . . the gentleman. It is well to be a gentleman, it is well to have a cultivated intellect, a delicate taste, a candid, equitable, dispassionate mind, with noble and courteous bearing in the conduct of life; – These are the connatural qualities of a large knowledge; they are the objects of a university. . . . But . . . they are no guarantee for the sanctity or even for conscientiousness; they may attach to the man of the world, to the profligate, to the heartless.”
Yes, to the heartless.

It is the purpose of these annual Holocaust remembrances – as it is the purpose of the nearby Holocaust museum – not only to honor the memory of the six million Jews and the three or four million other pour souls caught up in this twentieth-century terror, but also, by keeping the memory of their tragedy painfully alive, to prevent its happening again. The latter can be achieved only by acknowledging, and passing on to our children, the existence of absolute, uncompromiseable standards of human conduct. Mankind has traditionally derived such standards from religion; and the West has derived them from and through the Jews. Those absolute and uncompromiseable standards of human conduct will not endure without an effort to make them endure, and it is to that enterprise that we rededicate ourselves today. They are in the Decalogue, and they are in the question put and answered by Micah: “What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”

For those six million Jews to whom it was not done justly, who were shown no mercy, and for whom God and his laws were abandoned: may we remember their sufferings, and may they rest in peace.
Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
Trevor is the author of the 
The Miracle and Magnificence of America