Remember: Pay Little to No Attention to Current National General Election Presidential Polls

According to Real Clear Politics, in spite of the economy and everything else going well in the United States of America, almost every current national poll has President Trump trailing a hypothetical Democrat opponent. Whether Biden, Sanders, Warren, or even Buttigieg, Bloomberg, or Klobuchar, President Trump trails them all in nearly every poll. As of this writing, the latest general election national poll by CNN, IBD/TIPP, Emerson, Fox News, Quinnipiac, and SurveyUSA has President Trump behind almost every possible Democrat candidate.

In 32 different matchups from the six polling agencies previously mentioned, President Trump leads in only two scenarios. Again, as of this writing, the latest IBD/TIPP national poll has Trump beating Warren 47% to 46% and the latest Emerson poll has Trump beating Buttigieg 51% to 49%. According to these polls, even democrats who have since dropped out of the race were beating President Trump.

The latest SurveyUSA national poll (at the end of November, 2019) had Kamala Harris beating the current President of the United States 47% to 42%. At the point Harris dropped out of the race, the Real Clear Politics average had her at plus six over President Trump. Out of 42 polls reported by Real Clear Politics—from June of 2018 until November of 2019—Trump topped Harris only six times. Again, remember that this is a candidate who couldn’t even outlast Julián Castro and Marianne Williamson.

Of course, the lesson here is the 2016 Presidential election. At this point in the 2016 Presidential election, up until Election Day on November 8, 2016, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump in the vast majority of polls taken. By my count (using a spreadsheet), as reported by Real Clear Politics (RCP), there were 221 polls taken in 2016 that polled Clinton vs. Trump for U.S. President. Donald Trump led in only 26 polls. Twenty-six out of 221. That’s over 88% of the polls that showed Clinton beating Trump.

Often, the race between Clinton and Trump was shown as a complete blowout in favor of Hillary. From January of 2016 through April of 2016, there were a dozen polls that showed Hillary up by double digits. A March 2016 Bloomberg poll had Hillary up by 18 points!

Similarly, at this point in 2016, until Bernie Sanders dropped out of the race, virtually every poll had him leading Donald Trump. From January of 2016 until June of 2016 when Bernie dropped out, RCP reported 28 polls on Sanders vs. Trump. Of those 28 polls, Trump polled ahead of Bernie only once. At the time the polling ended (when Bernie dropped out of the race), the RCP average had Sanders topping Trump by over 10 points!

Again, the race between Trump and Bernie was often shown to be a YUUUGE blowout in favor of Bernie. Of those 28 RCP polls, 22 of them had Bernie on top by double digits. Twelve polls had Bernie up by 15 points or more. The same Bloomberg poll that had Hillary topping Trump by 18 points showed Bernie beating Trump by 24 points!

When it comes to polling, Rush Limbaugh was and is exactly right. As he noted near election time in 2016,

Don’t forget, there is an undeniable truth in politics, and it is this: Polling data is used to shape public opinion. Polling data… Whether it’s presidential races or anything else, if it’s a poll, it is being used to make news. Polling has become the mechanism by which the media can write their own stories, can set their own agenda, and make it look like they’ve got nothing to do with it. The polls have these reputations of independent, nonpartisan, bipartisan, uninterested in the outcome… 

And I want…to remind you again that all of these polls are being used to suppress support for Trump. They are being used to encourage people to abandon Trump. They’re being used to encourage Trump to abandon his campaign. Their purpose is to dispirit and depress everyone and convince as many people as possible that it’s over, that Trump is a buffoon and has no chance whatsoever, all of it’s a waste of time, they might as well concede now and you might as well concede now. That’s the purpose of it.

I’ve long realized well—as no-doubt now do many other Americans—that national polling and the results of the Electoral College are two different things. However, it is interesting to note that, along with all of the other polling nonsense in 2016, about two weeks out from the election, a Reuters/Ipsos “states poll” showed that “the most likely outcome” electorally speaking was “326 votes for Clinton to 212 for Trump.” This “commanding lead” gave Hillary a “better than 95 percent chance of winning.” It was a 99% chance of Hillary winning if one wanted to believe Princeton scientists (who used state polls to arrive at their number).

As we all now know, the “commanding lead” for Hillary turned into a 306 to 232 (304 to 227 due to “faithless electors”) electoral victory for Donald Trump. And the dismay at the loss of their 95% hopes quickly set in for democrats, as did the move to undo the results of the 2016 election.

I would only trust the polls that are two weeks or less out from the election. As Rush put it, “Those are the ones you really look at, because they are the polls their reputations will be staked to, and every polling unit at the end of a campaign wants to be trusted and reliable, they want to be shown to be right.” Whether or not one can trust the polling agencies, one certainly cannot trust the media who reports on them.

After Trump’s 2016 victory, one would think that the polling organizations and the media would’ve learned their lesson. Yet, less than a year after the 2016 election, an analysis by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group revealed that pollsters were back “churning out biased and misleading poll numbers.”

The Daily Caller reported,

“I do know inherently there is a Democratic bias in the polls. And most of them will deny it” says Raghavan Mayur, an independent pollster who is president of TechnoMetrica, which leads the polling operations at Investor’s Business Daily… 

Democratic pollster Patrick Caddell agreed with Mayur, saying “there was a couple of days of shock. And then they moved on because what they could not do is to get to the bottom of their own polling bias.” … 

When polling the public, most mainstream firms “overloaded for Democrats, underloaded for Republicans and conservatives,” said Francis Coombs, managing editor of Rasmussen Reports. 

John Zogby, another independent pollster, also told TheDCNF he sees significant Democratic polling bias. 

“I am a liberal Democrat, but I always felt that other polls oversampled Democrats and undersampled Republicans,” he said.

“Democratic” bias in the polls coupled with an overwhelming liberal bias in the media means that one should certainly pay little to no attention to most every poll between now and mid-October, and absolutely no attention to mainstream media reports on polling, from now until the end of time.

(See this column at American Thinker and LifeSiteNews.)

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Predicting the Presidential Election

I love Electoral College math. I mean, I teach mathematics and I write about politics, so pouring over various Electoral College combinations is right up my alley. Experts all across the country are telling us that this presidential election is coming down to a handful of “battleground” states. Thus, Romney and Obama are spending virtually all of their time and money in these final days before November 6 in states like Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and the like.

For most American voters, the memory of the 2000 election, where George W. Bush beat Al Gore in a narrow Electoral victory (271 to 266) while losing the popular vote 48.4% to 47.9%, is still fresh. The weeks-long battle to count and recount votes in Florida, where the phrase “hanging chads” entered our vernacular, is a path to which no one wants to return. For 36 days, the winner of the 2000 presidential election was in limbo. After countless hours of elections officials leering at ballots, nonstop media coverage, and 47 lawsuits, ultimately it took a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to put the matter to rest.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. In spite of the seeming closeness of this race, another outcome like 2000 is highly unlikely. In fact, only four times in our nation’s history has the winner of the popular vote not gone on to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Prior to the 2000 election, the last time such an event occurred was 112 years earlier, in 1888. Incumbent Grover Cleveland narrowly won the popular vote (eight-tenths of a percent), but Benjamin Harrison easily (by 65 votes) carried the Electoral College. Two other times during the 19^th century the winner of the popular vote failed to win the presidency.

The closest Electoral College result in American history occurred in 1876 when Democrat Samuel Tilden won the popular vote by three percent but lost the Electoral College vote to Republican Rutherford Hayes 185 to 184. Probably the strangest presidential election result was one of the earliest. (An excellent source for such data is Dave Leip’s (online) Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.)

In 1824, four candidates received significant support: Henry Clay, William Crawford, Andrew Jackson, and John Quincy Adams. Jackson won the popular vote (41%), followed by Adams (31%), Crawford (16%), and Clay (14%). Jackson also won the Electoral Vote with 99 votes. Adams received 84 while Crawford and Clay received 41 and 37 respectively.

However, Jackson’s Electoral support was not enough to win the presidency. According to the 12^th Amendment, the election then went to the House of Representatives where Adams was the winner.

A significant mathematical note here is that in only one case where the winner of the popular vote lost the Electoral College did the candidate actually receive over 50% of the popular vote: Tilden in 1876 with 51%—and remember this was the closest Electoral result in U.S. history. So out of the 56 U.S. presidential elections, only once did a candidate receive over 50% of the popular vote and not make it to the White House.

All of this is to say that, in spite of the ENORMOUS amount of attention (not to mention polling) paid to a handful of states, perhaps the best indicator of who will win the presidency are the national popular vote polls. If it looks likely that a candidate is going to receive at least 51% of the national popular vote, an Electoral victory is almost certain.

Political expert Charlie Cook (The Cook Political Report) said as much back in June of this year. “All of this time and effort spent parsing state-level polls would be better spent more closely examining the national polling data, particularly looking at how the candidates are performing now compared with Obama and John McCain in 2008, and examining how likely the members of specific (and potentially decisive) demographic groups are to actually vote.”

Cook also notes that, “If a race is close nationally, it will be close in a lot of individual states, too.” His implication above is that the inverse is also true. If the race is not close nationally, then it will not be close in very many states, including the “battleground” states. In other words, once a candidate reaches a particular level of support nationally, any of the states that were particularly close are almost certainly in line with the national vote.

As I indicated above, that level of support seems to be around 52%. If Romney or Obama gets to this number, any states that are seemingly tied are virtually guaranteed to be in the camp of the leader. Therefore, as we approach November 6, keep an eye on the national polls. (Real Clear Politics (RCP) is an excellent source.)

Of course, currently Romney is the candidate in the best position for such an outcome. As of this writing, Romney’s RCP national polling average stands at 48% while Obama is at 47%. Also, Romney has been at or above 50% in about half of the national polls in the last ten days. Gallup, in its six day polling average, has had Romney at or above 50% since October 15. During this same period Obama has been at 47% or below. No presidential candidate that has polled at 50% or better in the Gallup survey by the middle of October has gone on to lose the election. (Gallup has correctly predicted 16 of 19 presidential races dating back to 1936.)

Keep a particularly close eye on the national polls on the Saturday through Monday prior to Election Day. Most polling agencies will then produce their final predictions. These are the polls upon which their reputations mostly rest, and accuracy will be essential. Plus, extreme efforts to predict any voters left undecided (most of which will prefer the challenger to the incumbent) will be taken. Of course, when all else fails, just check in Wednesday, November 7. This (usually) will tell us everything.

Copyright 2012, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Clear Moral Choice

After his drubbing in the first debate, Barack Obama finds himself on the receiving end of plenty of advice when it comes to the next one. Jennifer Granholm (remember her?), the former governor of Michigan turned political commentator (though few know it, as she resides on Al Gore’s Current TV), recently chimed in. “This election involves a moral choice,” she recently declared, adding that, “This is a choice about our national character.”

I have to chuckle whenever liberals want to talk in terms of morality. I mean, after all, it was their party that lustily booed God on their convention floor. Of course, this is in addition to their devotion to killing children in the womb, removing prayer, the Commandments, and the Bible from the public arena, and their support of sexual immorality and the redefinition of marriage.

Ironically, with the devotion they show, for many, liberalism has become a religion. “Observing the basic divide in the American culture,” Dr. Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, looks to Howard P. Kainz, professor emeritus of philosophy at Marquette University. Kainz notes: “Most of the heat of [culture] battle occurs where traditional religious believers clash with certain liberals who are religiously committed to secular liberalism.”

Mohler adds, “Looking back over the last century, Kainz argues that Marxism and ideological Liberalism have functioned as religious systems for millions of individuals. Looking specifically at Marxism, Kainz argues that the Marxist religion had dogmas, canonical scriptures, priests, theologians, ritualistic observances, parochial congregations, heresies, hagiography, and even an eschatology…

“Similarly, Kainz argues that modern secular liberalism includes its own dogmas. Among these are the beliefs ‘that mankind must overcome religious superstition by means of reason; that empirical science can and will eventually answer all the questions about the world and human values that were formerly referred to traditional religion or theology; and that the human race, by constantly invalidating and disregarding hampering traditions, can and will achieve perfectibility.’”

Of course, this directly contradicts the Judeo-Christian worldview held by most conservatives. Thus, Kainz boldly warns that modern secular liberalism is the greatest threat to orthodox Christianity. This is no new assertion, as Mohler also points out.

In the early 1920s, J. Gresham Machen, founder of Westminster Theological Seminary, argued that “evangelical Christianity and its liberal rival were, in effect, two very different religions.” In his book Christianity and Liberalism, Machen goes so far as to propose that Christian liberalism is not Christianity at all, declaring that “Liberalism has abandoned Christianity.”

Bishop E.W. Jackson certainly thinks so. The fiery black pastor recently implored black Christians to “end [their] slavish devotion to the Democrat Party.” Jackson accuses Democrats of violating “everything we believe as Christians,” and of creating an “unholy alliance” with Planned Parenthood which, he declares, “has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was.” He goes on: “Planned Parenthood…has killed unborn black babies by the tens-of-millions…and the Democrat Party and their black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”

Many Pastors, of every skin color, are becoming bolder when it comes to political activity. Sunday October 8 was Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The movement, led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), challenges the IRS over the 1954 Johnson Amendment which forbids churches from specifically endorsing candidates. Over 1,500 American pastors participated and voluntarily informed the IRS of their “transgression.” (In 2008, the number was only 33.)

As more and more people of faith see our government (especially the federal government) endorsing or specifically engaging in activity that many deem immoral, taking a political stand on the social issues is seen as vital. Pastor Mark Cowart in Colorado Springs told his congregation that, “When a Christian goes in and votes for someone who promotes things that God abhors, I can’t imagine how God sees that. I encourage you to look at your faith and your politics and your vote and see if they correlate.”

Granholm’s recent Huffington Post piece was entitled, “Mr. President: Next Debate, Make Moral Choice Clear.” Of course, what she really means is that she wants Barack Obama to make the case for bigger government. She wants Mr. Obama to make the case for having more of our money. Liberals love to be generous—with other people’s money.

So yes, PLEASE Mrs. Granholm, let’s debate the moral issues. Let’s have Mr. Obama defend his “evolution” on gay marriage and his defense of what could only be described as infanticide. Let him justify to the American people why he prefers to be more generous with our income than he is with his own. Conservatives welcome this debate.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Why is the Catholic Church Surprised?

In the months prior to the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, then candidate Barack Obama said, “The first thing I'll do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).” FOCA, as co-sponsor Barbara Boxer described, “supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose. That means a poor woman cannot be denied the use of Medicaid if she chooses to have an abortion.”

Back in December of 2008, just after Obama’s election as U.S. President (winning 54% of the Catholic vote), I noted that, according to New York Post columnist Ray Kerrison, Obama’s commitment to the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) “dominated [the U.S. Catholic Bishops’] discussions at their annual convention in Baltimore last month.”

In his column Kerrison said that FOCA “would also compel taxpayers to fund abortions and provide abortions in military hospitals. Most provocatively of all, it would force religious hospital and health-care institutions to perform abortions in violation of their convictions.”

Kerrison added that, “If President-elect Barack Obama goes through with his campaign pledge to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, holy hell is going to break loose.” He concluded that, “FOCA means war.”

Of course, FOCA never made it out of Congress. Thus, Obama never got the chance to keep his pledge to sign the infamous bill, and the “war” with the Catholic Church had to wait a few years.

Furthermore, while a member of the Illinois state Senate, Obama opposed a bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). He took to the floor and gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.” (What?! We need the “equal protection clause” to tell us that we shouldn’t kill our children?!)

The Catholic Church teaches that health care is “a basic human right,” and has been very supportive of the idea of the U.S. federal government implementing universal healthcare. Enter Obamacare. For months leading up to the final passage of Obamacare, Catholic Bishops lobbied heavily for its passage—minus federal funding of abortion. Once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to add the Stupak amendment to the House version of Obamacare, the Bishops were onboard.

Though the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the version of Obamacare that passed (because of the removal of the Stupak amendment), they did not support GOP efforts to repeal it once republicans took control of congress. Also, some Catholic leaders supported Obamacare in spite of the lack of the Stupak amendment.

Regardless of previous positions on Obamacare, and in spite of Obama’s recent retreat, the Catholic Church is now in an all out war with the Obama administration over contraception. This begs the questions, why the outrage now? What did they expect?

In other words, there was no reason to believe that Obama was going to be anything other that a radical liberal on social issues. The time for “war” with Obama was BEFORE he was elected leader of the free world. However, in partnering with democrats and liberals, it seems that many within the leadership of the Catholic Church have for far too long been willing to violate my proverb that, “It is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.”

Or, as Paul Rahe recently put it, the American Catholic Church decades ago “fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.”

The contraception mandate is classic example of “state paternalism.” It is exactly what one gets when the people surrender that kind of power to their government. If liberals remain in power, the result will be no different when the issue comes to marriage or any other matter precious to Christians and other like-minded Americans.

Left unfettered, the slow creep of liberalism knows no bounds. As Mark Steyn recently noted, “In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church…In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom.”

Elections have consequences. If Americans continue in their willingness to surrender more of their liberty in order to receive another entitlement, we will even further embolden those, who, while claiming to serve us, are seeking to become our masters.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2012, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Newt’s Past Doesn’t Disqualify Him

One of the most beloved men in the history of humanity is the second king of Israel, King David. The “ruddy and handsome” young man, who was the legendary slayer of the Philistine giant Goliath, is a transcendent figure, significant not only within the religious realm, but the world over.

As America is embroiled in another presidential primary season, we would do well to keep the lessons of King David in mind.

When seeking out the successor to Israel’s first king, Saul, Samuel the prophet went to the home of Jesse. As Jesse’s seven older sons passed before Samuel, each was rejected. God then revealed that he had chosen Jesse’s youngest son, David, to lead His people.

David excelled at many things. He was an accomplished musician and authored many of the Psalms. He became a mighty military leader, defeating the likes of the Amalekites, Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, Philistines, and Syrians. Furthermore, he was a prophet, with many of the Messianic prophecies attributed to him.

The New Testament lists David in the genealogy of Jesus. Jesus is often referred to as the “Son of David” and the “Root of David.” Throughout the New Testament, David is directly mentioned or alluded to as a “father” or “patriarch” of Israel. Truly, David was a blessed and revered man.

On the other hand, David also was an adulterer and a murderer. Early in his reign, while the army was away and David remained in Jerusalem, he slept with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, a soldier in Israel’s army. When she revealed that she was pregnant, David tried to hide his sin by calling Uriah back home in hopes that some time with his wife would conceal the fact that another man was the father of her child.

When Uriah nobly refused to allow himself the comforts of home while his comrades were away at war, David plotted with his generals to have Uriah killed in battle. His planned succeeded. Uriah was killed and David then took Bathsheba for his wife.

All of this, and yet God still called David “a man after My own heart.” Certainly David suffered dire consequences for his sin (including the death of the son Bathsheba bore), but God never abandoned him, and David repented and turned back to God. King David ruled Israel for over three decades.

Of course, this is not to say that we need to seek out adulterers and murderers as our leaders, but it is a fact that each of us has our shortcomings (“all have sinned”). How many of us would look “electable” if all of our baggage were laid out for all to see?

Newt Gingrich is a man with much baggage. A presidential candidate on his third marriage should give any voter great pause. It is quite noteworthy that, if not for his marital shortcomings, Gingrich would probably be the clear GOP frontrunner. (His critics point to other issues in his personal and political past, but by far the largest millstone around Newt’s neck is the failure of his marriages.) This speaks volumes to the consequences of divorce. I think it also speaks well of many within the republican electorate that such matters are still considered significant when going to the ballot box.

However, Gingrich’s adulteries alone should not disqualify him from being the GOP nominee. I don’t say this lightly. I despise the plague of divorce that has ravaged our nation for decades. As a teacher of teenagers for nearly 20 years, I know all too well the sad consequences that divorce brings.

When a politician’s past indiscretions (sin) are of such nature that it brings into question whether he is fit to lead, there are several things to consider—at least for a Christian voter. The first question to ask: is he currently walking in faith? The second question goes hand-in-hand with the first: is he repentant?

Now, as C.S. Lewis notes, “repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into…it means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death.”

I’m not sure if Mr. Gingrich has gotten to this point, but if he has, he needs to make it clear to us. Many evangelical voters took great comfort when, in the last presidential race, John McCain told Pastor Rick Warren that he took responsibility for the failure of his first marriage and that it was the greatest regret of his life.

Newt is certainly no King David, and this column is not an endorsement of him. In fact, I have issues with him that go beyond his marital past. However, each of the GOP candidates has his “issues.” Nevertheless, ANY of them is a VAST improvement over Obama, and I will eagerly cast my vote for whoever is the GOP nominee.

Copyright 2012, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

A Christian Response to Whoever Wins the Presidency

Writing in The Light and the Glory, Peter Marshall and David Manuel note that in hoping for America to be on the right path many Christians have “hoped that electing a Christian President would do the job. But as Dwight Eisenhower once said, ‘Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.’”

Marshall and Manuel continue, “It is the most dangerous kind of corporate self-delusion to think that a President, regardless of how much he heeds God, can reverse the bent of the national will, once it is set in a certain direction…which seems to put the responsibility directly upon each of us who has a personal relationship with our Savior—much as we might like to blame the immorality of others for the precipitous rate of decline. But the responsibility is ours, and it always has been.”

Make no mistake; I believe that a liberal President with a liberal Congress could pose very dire consequences for our nation. As Thomas Sowell recently put it, “Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown.”

There is the old saying, “We get the government we deserve.” Those occupying the White House and the halls of Congress are, usually, a reflection of the electorate in general. If we want leaders who value life and liberty, who believe in the sanctity of biblical marriage and a limited role of government; if we want leaders who believe in a strong military and understand the role of commander-in-chief, then America needs the heart of the people to reflect these things.

When the nation of Israel insisted on a king, the prophet Samuel inquired of the Lord. Scripture reveals that the Lord told Samuel to give the Israelites what they asked for. The Lord added that, “It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me…” Samuel tried to warn Israel of the consequences of having a king to lead them. They would not hear of it. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations…”

During his farewell speech, after anointing Saul as Israel’s first king, Samuel told the people, “Now here is the king you have chosen, the one you asked for.” So the Israelites got what they wanted, but after Samuel’s speech they realized their sin, saying, “Pray to the Lord your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”

Samuel told them not to be afraid, even though they had done this evil. “Do not turn away from the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart,” Samuel said. He later added, “Far be it from me that I should sin against the Lord by failing to pray for you…but be sure to fear the Lord and serve him faithfully with all your heart…yet if you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will be swept away.”

As Christians I believe that our response to this current election should be similar to Samuel’s response to the people of Israel. Whether or not we think the right man is elected President, or the right people occupy Congress, far be it from us to cease praying for our nation and our nation’s political leaders. Our duty is to follow God and his ways, whoever occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

God will not be surprised by the outcome of this election, and He has good plans for His people whatever the outcome. However, there almost certainly will be negative consequences for choosing the wrong political leaders. I don’t know perfectly whom God would rather see win elections, and no matter who wins, His number one desire is to have the heart of the people reflect His heart. I would also add that, no matter who wins on November 4, He is still on His throne and will be always.

Copyright 2008, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

McCain's Brilliant Choice

See, I told you that John McCain could be trusted to make good decisions for the country (See The Case for McCain on my Web site.). If Sarah Palin is any kind of indication as to the kind of people with whom he would surround himself as President of the United States, I can’t wait to see his first Supreme Court nominee.

The choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate was a brilliant decision by John McCain in numerous ways. First, and probably most importantly, she energized the base of the Republican Party and galvanized them behind McCain. Palin is a true-blue (or rather red) conservative. She is a Christian, is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, while also being fiscally conservative, and anti-establishment.

Palin is someone that every facet of the conservative base can get behind. Evidence of this was the money that came pouring into the campaign the weekend that she was chosen and continued to roll in the week of the Republican convention. McCain’s campaign raked in $7 million the day Palin was announced. They reported bringing in $10 million on the day of Palin’s convention speech, which was the most they ever raised in one day. Republicans now say that there will be no money advantage for Obama the rest of the campaign.

The choice of Palin demonstrates, again, the “maverick” image of McCain. This will continue his appeal to independents. Also, there is the obvious appeal to women, especially those who may have become disenfranchised with the Obama campaign not choosing Hillary. If nothing else, it keeps Obama playing defense as to why he passed over Senator Clinton for his V.P.

Also, Palin’s strengths match Obama’s strengths. He’s fresh and new, so is she. He’s articulate and well spoken, so is she. He’s handsome; she’s beauty-queen beautiful. He’s an African-American, she’s a woman.

In addition, her weaknesses, whether perceived or real, that liberals may point out, highlight even greater weaknesses in Obama. This gives the Republicans a retort for most every criticism that could be leveled at Palin. Liberals have said she doesn’t have enough experience. Conservatives responded that she has more than Obama.

Liberals will say she’s a small-town hick. Conservatives will respond that Obama is a big-city elitist. Liberals will say she comes from a radical church. Conservatives will quote Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Liberals will say she’s too conservative. Conservatives will point to Obama as the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Congress. Along with all of this, conservatives will note that Palin is on the under card for their party, while Obama has top billing with the Democrats.

What’s more, Palin has a life and a history to which most all Americans can relate. This cannot be said of any of the other candidates. McCain’s biography is so unique and amazing that no one can imagine himself as him. Obama is the graduate of two Ivy League schools (Columbia and Harvard) and has been involved in law or politics his whole adult life. Joe Biden has been in law and politics all of his adult life as well. In fact, he became a U.S. Senator at the Constitutionally minimum age of 30.

Palin is a graduate of the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She worked in journalism and served on the PTA. She’s helped her husband run his family’s commercial fishing business. She served two terms on the city council in Wasilla, Alaska and later became mayor of Wasilla. In 2002 she ran for lieutenant governor of Alaska and lost in a close race. She was appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and chaired that Commission from 2003 to 2004.

In 2006 Palin became the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest at age 42. In addition to all of this, she is a wife of 20 years and a mother of 5, including a son who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month. She hunts, fishes, and is a lifetime member of the NRA.

All of this gives Palin strong connections to the majority of Americans. Her life story is one that resonates across the heartland. It’s one that many young Americans, especially young women, can look at and say, “Yeah, I could do that.”

Many liberals know this, and this is why they have come after her. The attacks have been vicious. It was discovered through wild efforts to prove that Governor Palin’s last child was actually her grandchild, that her unwed 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant. Having their crazy theory quashed, liberals went after Bristol. (These liberals never seem to let the facts get in their way; i.e. Joan King’s August 26 article, which contained multiple false accusations about me. See my Web site for my response.)

It seems that many liberals imagined that since Palin’s daughter became pregnant out of wedlock, evangelical support might waver. This proved to be way off, and her attackers should have known better (though most liberals often get evangelicals wrong). Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported Bush-Cheney in two elections even though Cheney has a lesbian daughter.

This election should ultimately come down to the contrasts between McCain and Obama. However, Palin has shaken up the election like no one else could have. I think John McCain could have won without her, but I also believe that with Palin on the ticket, he improved greatly his chances of victory.

Copyright 2008, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Obama and the “Least of These”

A few days ago when Barack Obama was “Back in the Saddle” with Rick Warren, Obama uttered what was one of the most hypocritical statements ever offered by an American politician. When Obama was asked by Warren what he thought was, “the greatest moral failure of America,” he responded with, “I think America’s greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me…”

In describing “the least of us,” Obama mentioned poverty, racism, and sexism. Sadly, the unborn failed to make his list. This is not surprising, given Obama’s vile record on abortion. It has now been clearly demonstrated (see here for National Right to Life’s detailed account) that Obama, while a member of the Illinois state Senate, opposed multiple versions of an Illinois bill that mirrored the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).

According to National Right to Life, BAIPA was essentially “a simple two-paragraph proposal – [that] established…for all federal law purposes, any baby who was entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who showed any of the specified signs of life, was to be regarded as a legal person for however long he or she lived, and that this applied whether or not the birth was the result of an abortion or of spontaneous premature labor.”

In 2000 the original BAIPA was passed by the U.S. House by a vote of 380 to 15. This occurred in spite of opposition by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). Even staunch pro-abortion leaders, such as Jerrold Nadler, ignored the NARAL position and supported BAIPA. This version of BAIPA was later killed in the Senate by an objection to unanimous consent.

In 2001 the Illinois legislature took up a bill that was patterned after the federal BAIPA. Obama voted against this bill in committee. On the floor of the Illinois Senate, he later gave the only speech against the bill, saying, “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” (What?! We need the “equal protection clause” to tell us that we shouldn’t kill our children?!)

Obama finally, and “boldly,” voted “present” on the bill, which had the same effect as voting “no.” The bill passed the Illinois senate but died in a house committee. The scene pretty much repeated itself in 2002, this time with Obama voting “no.”

In 2002 a “neutrality clause” was added to the federal BAIPA. This clause basically said that, as far as federal law was concerned, legal protection could not be construed upon a human being prior to being “born alive.” This effectively protected Roe. The bill unanimously passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bush in 2002.

Obama is on the record saying that he would have supported the Illinois bill had it contained the neutrality clause. In October of 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act…”

However, in 2003 the exact language of the federal neutrality clause was added to the Illinois bill making it virtually identical to the federal BAIPA. In March of 2003, Obama chaired an Illinois Senate committee and led the Democrats on that committee to kill the amended bill.

In attempting to blunt the extremism of his abortion record, Obama has stated time and again that the lack of a neutrality clause was all that was preventing him from supporting the Illinois bill. When he was called out on the matter, Obama accused individuals and institutions of lying about his record. His campaign has since had to admit that his critics were correct about his voting record.

The hypocrisy of Obama’s “least of these” comment at Saddleback is beyond the pale. Whatever moral causes he chooses to champion, nothing compares to the helplessness of a newborn child. In other words there is nothing more “least” than an infant. Obama’s unwillingness to stand for these, along with his attempted deception in the matter, should give any voter great pause.

Copyright 2008, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Three Reasons to Vote for John McCain

In the light of two recent Supreme Court rulings, one in California and one at the U.S. Supreme Court, there should be little doubt as to the stakes of the elections this November. Back in February I suggested the fact that the duty of the President of the United States to fill vacancies in the federal judiciary was enough reason for any doubting but reasonable conservative to strongly consider voting for John McCain (see, “The Case for McCain” ). I believe that there are three significant reasons coming into clear light for voters to prefer John McCain over Barack Obama.

First, with the California Supreme Court disgracefully circumventing the will of California voters and by judicial fiat changing the legal definition of marriage; and with the U.S. Supreme Court conveying our constitutional rights upon non-U.S. citizens at Guantanamo Bay who wish to destroy us, it is becoming ever transparent as to the significant role that the judiciary plays in our republic. Outside of Commander-in-Chief, I don’t believe that there is a more significant role for the President of the United States than appointer of federal judges. As I implied several weeks ago, John McCain and BarackObama have drastically different takes on the judiciary.

Obama has said that he sees the U.S. Constitution as, “not a static but rather a living document.” However, as Justice Antonin Scalia has said, “the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document…(it) is an enduring document but not a ‘living’ one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.” Speaking to Planned Parenthood, and refering to judges, Obamasaid, “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”

Since “heart” and “empathy” are so important to Senator Obama, I wonder if he would nominate Oprah to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. (Also, I find it unfortunately ironic that Senator Obama doesn’t include the most defenseless of all, the unborn, in his reckoning of those who deserve our empathy.) Senator Obama voted against confirming John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. John McCain voted for them and has pledged to nominate justices in the same vein as Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.

Obama indicated support for the California Supreme court ruling, while John McCain came out against it. McCain called the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Gitmo detainees, “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” while Obama called the decision, “an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.” On judicial nominees the choice for conservatives in November is clear.

Second, concerning the role of Commander-in-Chief, many times during the primary season Americans were asked who they saw as most prepared to take on this role on day one of their presidency. Over-and-over again John McCain was the overwhelming choice. As I pointed out above, I believe this is the most important role for a U.S. President. Most voters are familiar with McCain’s military experience and his 26 years as a U.S. Representative and Senator. These will certainly aid him if he becomes commander of all U.S. forces.

Contrast this with Obama who has no military service, no executive experience, has served only a fraction of one term in the U.S. Senate, and spent most of this time running for president. If he becomes president, he would have, by far, the weakest résumé of any U.S. Commander-in-Chief in history. (For brief resumes of all U.S. Presidents go here.)

Last, when it comes to government spending, Senator McCain is viewed as a champion for the taxpayer and against government “pork.” He has a lifetime rating of 88% with Citizens Against Government Waste, which rates him a “taxpayer hero.” His latest rating with National Taxpayers Union is 88% (an “A”), while Obama’s latest rating was 5% (an “F”). Also, McCain has a lifetime rating of 82.7 (out of 100) with Americans for Tax Reform, while Obama’s brief career has netted him a 7.5% rating.

I don’t agree with Senator McCain when it comes to his current positions on man-made global warming, drilling in ANWR, and so on. However, Obama’s positions on those matters would be even more extreme. For far too many people Barack Obama’s most redeeming quality for president is his race. For example, Bill Clinton recently said, “I’ve been waiting all my life to vote for an African American president,” then added, “I’ve been waiting all my life to vote for a woman for president.” What a foolish thing for a supposedly highly intelligent man to say.

In these perilous times America cannot afford to select its president based only on race or gender. When it comes to my vote for President in November, John McCain is the clear and easy option.

Copyright 2008, 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
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Case for John McCain

Just how conservative is John McCain? It has been particularly interesting to watch, listen, and read about this issue. With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney, it also will be interesting to watch as McCain tries to sell himself to those skeptical of his conservatism. Many conservatives have contended that he is a liberal masquerading as one of their own. Some conservatives have gone so far as to say that there is little difference between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, and the country would be served equally well with either one occupying the White House. This all makes for high drama, and high ratings, but I don’t buy it. I do not see McCain as a liberal, and I don’t think it was reasonable to conclude that he was more liberal (in general) than his chief rival, Mitt Romney.

I’m not alone in this assessment either. National Review, a leading conservative journal (and an endorser of Romney), recently noted that, “McCain has a more consistent conservative record than Giuliani or Romney…This is an abiding strength of his candidacy.” Bill Bennett, in a recent article concluded that, “There is a great deal of difference between Senators McCain and Clinton (and Obama).”

The McCain haters, at least those with an audience, pinned their hopes on Romney. It is beyond me how a governor from “The People’s Republic of Massachusetts” became the darling of many diehard conservatives. His record as Governor is as liberal as one would imagine.

For example, in 2002 Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League’s candidate survey with, “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs…” Interestingly, he refused to respond to the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. His platform during the 2002 governor’s race said that he “would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts.”

Twice Romney sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual group, Log Cabin Republican Club. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, his organization distributed bright pink flyers during Boston’s annual Gay Pride events, which said, “Mitt and Kerry [his running mate] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights regardless of their sexual preference.”

Now Romney ran for President as a pro-life, pro family conservative. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere in his policy reversals, but his conversion at least appeared politically convenient. However, I would have enthusiastically supported him over Clinton or Obama.

Some claim that if McCain gets elected, he will make a political “left turn.” Why were those supporting Romney so sure that he wouldn't pull the same thing? As has been widely reported, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union rating is 83. This puts him right behind Fred Thompson’s 86, who was the favorite of most conservatives early on. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 79% rating from National Right to Life and during that same period he averaged a 0% rating from the pro abortion groups Planned Parenthood and NARAL. From 2003 to 2006 McCain averaged a 6.5 % from the liberal National Organization for Women, and a 100% from the conservative Concerned Women for America. (Interest group ratings for many politicians can be found at www.vote-smart.org)

The Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson (who refuses to personally support McCain’s candidacy), as recently as 2003 rated McCain 100%. Interestingly the founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, found it acceptable last November to endorse the thrice married, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control Rudy Giuliani (who also was once a darling of other very vocal “conservatives”).

President Bush is no perfect conservative either (whatever that is). However, he has been steadfast as Commander In Chief, has given the country tax cuts, has overseen significant economic growth, and perhaps most importantly, appointed the strict constructionists Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

Whatever a conservative’s concerns with John McCain, and there are legitimate ones, the dual roles of Commander In Chief, and appointer of Federal Judges, should be enough to cause any reasonable conservative to give him some benefit of the doubt.

Concerning McCain as Commander In Chief, even some of his most outspoken critics such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, admit that, “The world’s bad guys would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the U.S. through terror.” Contrast that with Barak Obama, who has about the same foreign policy experience as I do, or with Hillary Clinton who said recently that her first act as President would be to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within 60 days.

On the Federal Judiciary, the Wall Street Journal recently said, “there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006.”

Given all of this, I will eagerly vote for John McCain in November over the likes of Clinton or Obama. If you call yourself a conservative, I hope you will do the same.

Copyright 2008, 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

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com