What “Systemic Liberalism” Has Wrought

After another weekend of violence in Atlanta—where nearly three dozen were shot and five were killed, including an eight-year-old girl—Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said “enough is enough.” However, because her worldview is corrupted by modern liberalism—which is the case with the leadership in virtually every major U.S. city—she offered no real solutions for the recent epidemic of violence that plagues Atlanta.

As has been widely reported, Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp stepped in and ordered the activation of 1,000 National Guard troops in order to “protect state property and patrol” the streets of Atlanta. In his statement, Kemp declared,

Peaceful protests were hijacked by criminals with a dangerous, destructive agenda. Now, innocent Georgians are being targeted, shot, and left for dead. This lawlessness must be stopped and order restored in our capital city. I have declared a State of Emergency and called up the Georgia Guard because the safety of our citizens comes first. This measure will allow troops to protect state property and dispatch state law enforcement officers to patrol our streets. Enough with the tough talk. We must protect the lives and livelihoods of all Georgians.

Part of the problem in Atlanta—again, like we now see in so many large, Democrat-led U.S. cities—is plummeting police morale. After the death of George Floyd, and the unjust and incorrect accusations of “systemic racism” throughout America, police all over the U.S. were made into scapegoats for what really plagues the urban areas of America. As a result, police officers have been targeted for violence and mayhem simply for wearing their uniforms and doing their jobs.

In addition, police officers have been targeted—and unjustly fired—by their superiors. This has been the case in Atlanta. As a result, a recent wave of “blue flu” has swept through the Atlanta Police Department. Almost certainly, this means dangerous areas of Atlanta are not seeing the usual police presence. Thus the need for the Georgia National Guard.

And thus we see again the sad, sorry results of the “Ferguson Effect.” The “Ferguson Effect,” a phrase coined by Heather MacDonald, says that, when police stop, or reduce, policing—because of political pressure, community pressure, department policies, and the like—criminals are emboldened and crime increases.

Because of democrats’ relentless and dishonest campaign against law enforcement, the Ferguson Effect has led to numerous U.S. cities becoming significantly more dangerous. As John Nolte put it several years ago, “The obvious and predictable result is a rise in violent crime that only hurts predominantly poor, black, inner-city neighborhoods.” Of course, the magnificently foolish calls to “defund the police” or “abolish the police” (as some school districts are now doing) will only ensure that the Ferguson Effect will continue and will result in even more death and destruction in America’s urban areas.

Whatever one’s politics on these matters, one question that often is ignored when it comes to policing and America’s cities is, why do the urban areas of America require more policing in the first place? Why is it that certain parts of America—whether cities, towns, or schools—require very little policing and see almost no crime (certainly little to no violent crime)? I believe the answer is quite simple: Wherever one sees intact, God-fearing families—families with a married mother and father who regularly attend religious services—crime is virtually non-existent.

Of course, sound morality has long revealed this to be the case, but, if you require it, multiple studies have also shown that children raised by a married mother and father are better citizens; e.g., less likely to commit crimes, more likely to perform well in school, and so on. Additionally, multiple studies have shown that religious Americans are more involved with their families, less likely to divorce, do better financially, are more likely to donate their time and other resources to their communities, and are happier and healthier than their non-religious counterparts.

Modern liberalism’s war on the family and faith has been particularly devastating to fathers, and this has been particularly devastating to America’s youth and the communities that must deal with the consequences of fatherless children. Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children from single-parent homes (almost always without a father) are

more likely to…engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.  Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.

Additionally, fatherlessness is the single greatest cause of poverty in the U.S. As Robert Rector pointed out years ago, “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.” In order to further their big government agenda, modern liberals often point to education as the answer to poverty in America. However, marriage is a far better weapon against poverty than is education. Again, as Rector points out, “being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.” In addition, a child living in a single-parent home in which the parent is a college graduate is nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as a child living with their married parents whose highest level of education is completing high school.

Marriage provides the safest environment for children. In addition to being much more likely to live in crime-ridden communities, children born to single moms face much more danger inside the home than do children living with their married parents. As marripedia points out:

• The rate of physical abuse is 3 times higher in the single parent family.
• The rate of physical abuse is 4 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with the child’s biological father (unmarried).
• The rate of physical abuse is 5 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
• The rate of physical abuse is 10 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

The rates for sexual abuse are even worse than physical abuse:

• The rate of sexual abuse is 5 times higher in the single parent family and when both biological parents are cohabiting (i.e., unmarried).
• The rate of sexual abuse is 8.6 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
• The rate of sexual abuse is 20 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

As tragic as the outcomes of the Ferguson Effect are, the “Fatherless Effect” is much more wide-ranging, common, and deadly in American society. Of course, systemic liberalism is responsible for both. If today’s liberals have “accomplished” anything, they have given us the destruction of the biblical family model and the removal of God from virtually every public institution in America. No amount of policing, no number of soldiers can make up for either. And neither can the racist, Marxist Black Lives Matter organization—or any of their like-minded ilk.

If America wants our city streets to be safe, if we want our communities and schools to function properly, we must abandon the “principles” of modern liberalism and fix our homes and our hearts. To do that, we must look to the One who made us and what His Word says in all of these matters.

(See this column at American Thinker.) 

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

Libertarians (Like John Stossel) Need to Stand for the Truth on Marriage

John Stossel’s recent column, “Dads Needed,” contains some timely, important, but well-known—at least within the Christian conservative community—truths. Much of the column focuses on the work of author, speaker, and former feminist, Warren Ferrell—especially Ferrell’s new book The Boy Crisis. As Mr. Stossel explains,

In “The Boy Crisis,” Farrell notes that dads routinely get passed over when it comes to custody of kids, even though kids benefit enormously if they have male role models. Boys without fathers suffer more, he says.

Why does a same-sex role model matter more for boys?

“Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships and emotional connections,” answers Farrell. “So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects boys more profoundly than it does their sisters. Boys are then far more likely to be disobedient, delinquent, drop out of school.”

Along with his recent column, “Stossel on Reason” recently interviewed Dr. Ferrell. Here Ferrell notes, “Men and boys started falling behind when government began subsidizing single mothers.” He later adds, “It doesn’t make a difference whether she [a single mother] needs a man, it makes a difference that her children need a father.” Farrell also notes that children without fathers “do worse in 70 different areas,” and again declares, “They are far more likely to be disobedient, delinquent, drop out of school.”

As I implied above, almost none of this is new information. For literally decades, I, and many others, have often noted the negative outcomes not just for boys, but for all children who are raised in broken homes. What’s more, we have also long warned of the dangers that an out-of-control welfare state poses to children and families—particularly how it has contributed to the obscene rise in out-of-wedlock births in the U.S.

As most conservatives well know, the family has long been a target of liberalism, especially the militant feminist brand of liberalism. In 1973, Gloria Steinem, one of the most recognizable names and faces of feminazism, said,

We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage…By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God…We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.

Many organizations (which should include your church!)—with the support of tens of millions of like-minded Americans—have devoted decades of time, along with mountains of money and other resources, to fighting for the truth in the war on the family.

Nothing is as fundamental in this fight as is marriage. From the beginning of humanity the union of one man and one woman has defined what is a family and has been the means by which children are to be brought into the world and properly raised to adulthood. And nothing has been as contradictory to these eternal truths as is same-sex “marriage.”

Decades of rampant divorce and out-of-wedlock births have been far more devastating to children than has the perverse, but recent, redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity. However, before having to debate what is a marriage, when dealing with the brokenness of divorce and the illicit “hook-up” culture that has led to widespread out-of-wedlock births, we could at least still definitively point people to the absolute truth of marriage. No more.

Sadly, libertarians such as Stossel, Neal Boortz, and the like have been complicit in the left’s deceit when it comes to marriage and the family. In spite of the important truths on parenting, marriage, and family that Stossel has recently acknowledged, he was at best silent, and at worst openly hostile to the truth on marriage.

In his 2011 column, “The Gay Marriage Debate,” Stossel wrote,

As a libertarian, I think all consenting adults who want to commit to a life partner ought to be treated the same way… If they redefine marriage to include gays, that doesn't diminish my marriage. And if kids are taught that gay marriage is OK, so what?... I don't care if there are three fathers and six mothers. If it’s a stable relationship and the kids are connected with their parents, that's great… Sorry, but I still don’t see what divorce and unwed motherhood have to do with gay marriage.

Additionally, in 2015, on Facebook, Stossel said, “I happen to believe gay marriage is just fine, and I’ll happily join the wedding.” Of course, as his interaction with Dr. Ferrell and his teaching on children and parenting should have taught him, same-sex “marriage” is not “fine.” Among other immoral things like divorce and unwed motherhood, same-sex “marriage” results in this: in every sad situation, a helpless child is robbed of a parent. And as Dr. Ferrell—and countless others—well demonstrates, children who lose out on being raised by a mother and a father suffer.

In spite of the mountain of evidence—including, and especially, the Bible!—that reveals children need a mother and father, I can find no instance where Mr. Stossel has been critical of same-sex “marriage.” Likewise—and even more disturbing given his decades of writing and research on matters concerning children—I can find no instance where Dr. Ferrell has been critical of the perverse LGBT agenda on marriage.

Libertarians and conservatives agree, “That government is best which governs least.” Nothing promotes the smaller government that libertarians supposedly crave like the family. Strong and healthy families mean less crime, less welfare, less disease, better schools, better churches, a better economy, and so on.

A troubling trend with most libertarians is that they are often looking for science—“research,” “studies”—to tell them what sound morality has long revealed. For this reason, libertarians are often aligned with liberals on the moral issues and are quick to decry the “legislating of morality.” Of course, all good government is rooted in someone’s idea of morality. Like the rest of us, libertarians just have to decide by whose morality they wish to be governed.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Fatherless Effect

Over the last several months—and especially the last few weeks—much has been made of the “Ferguson effect.” The phenomenon is now so widely discussed that it has its own Wikipedia page (though I wouldn’t suggest visiting it for an explanation). St. Louis police chief Sam Dotson coined the phrase in November of 2014, but Heather MacDonald popularized it in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2015. In early 2016, she again described the Ferguson effect:

Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014, the conceit that American policing is lethally racist has dominated media and political discourse, from the White House on down. Cops in minority neighborhoods in Chicago and other cities have responded by backing away from pedestrian stops and public-order policing; criminals are flourishing in the vacuum.

In other words, because of the lies of liberals, many American policeman have taken their nightsticks and their nine-millimeters out of some of the most dangerous areas in the U.S. and criminals are taking full advantage. As I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, given that black Americans typically live in the most dangerous parts of our nation, it is black Americans who are suffering the most from police disengagement from “discretionary enforcement activity.”

In my last piece I barely mentioned the effects of the absence of fathers on black children in America. The current political and moral climate in the U.S. demands that we give this grave issue more attention. Again, out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. are at historic highs, and the vast majority of black children in America are born to single mothers. And just as criminal gangs and other undesirables fill the void of absent police officers in American neighborhoods, the same thing happens—but on a much larger and more destructive scale—when fathers are absent from the family.

There are over 100 cities in the U.S.—from Atlanta to Utica—with populations north of 50,000 in which more than half of the households are headed by single parents. Of course, the vast majority of these households are led by single moms. These cities are the most dangerous places in the U.S. Given the rate of black out-of-wedlock births, and with most black Americans living in large U.S. cities (about 75%), millions of American black children are growing up fatherless in the most crime-ridden places in America.

Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children living with their married biological parents are the least likely to commit criminal acts. On the other hand, children from single-parent homes (almost always without a father) are “more likely to…engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent.  Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States.”

As the breakdown of the family has been hotly debated in the U.S. for years now, you’ve almost certainly heard the above stats before. However, long before the rampant disintegration of the family in America began, researchers were revealing what common sense and sound morality always knew. As authors Kevin and Karen Wright point out:

Research into the idea that single-parent homes may produce more delinquents dates back to the early 19th century…. [O]fficials at New York State's Auburn Penitentiary, in an attempt to discern the causes of crime, studied the biographies of incarcerated men. Reports to the legislature in 1829 and 1830 suggested that family disintegration resulting from the death, desertion, or divorce of parents led to undisciplined children who eventually became criminals.  

Fatherlessness is the single greatest cause of poverty in the U.S. As Robert Rector pointed out years ago, “Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.” In order to further their big government agenda, modern liberals often point to education as the answer to poverty in America. However, marriage is a far better weapon against poverty than is education. Again, as Rector points out, “being married has the same effect in reducing poverty that adding five to six years to a parent’s level of education has.” In addition, a child living in a single-parent home where the parent is a college graduate is nearly twice as likely to live in poverty as a child living with their married parents whose highest level of education is completing high school.

Marriage provides the safest environment for children. In addition to being much more likely to live in crime-ridden communities, children born to single moms face much more danger inside the home than do children living with their married parents. As marripedia points out:

• The rate of physical abuse is 3 times higher in the single parent family.
• The rate of physical abuse is 4 times higher if mother is cohabiting with the child’s biological father (unmarried).
• The rate of physical abuse is 5 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
• The rate of physical abuse is 10 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

The rates for sexual abuse are even worse than physical abuse:

• The rate of sexual abuse is 5 times higher in the single parent family and when both biological parents are cohabiting (i.e. unmarried).
• The rate of sexual abuse is 8.6 times higher if the child is living in a married step family.
• The rate of sexual abuse is 20 times higher if the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend.

Contrary to popular belief, the most likely physical abuser of a child in a single-parent home is the mother. Because they lack the financial, emotional, and other support of a husband and a father in the home, single moms are more likely to experience anger, impatience, anxiety, and feelings of helplessness. Additionally, single moms are more likely to be depressed and feel rejected by their children than are women who have a husband.

As tragic as the outcomes of the Ferguson effect are, the fatherless effect is much more wide-ranging, common, and deadly in American society. The good news, though: if we solve the fatherless effect, there is not even an opportunity to experience the Ferguson effect. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Too Many Trayvons

One of the most dangerous things to be in America today is a young black male. Contrary to what the race pimps and publicity prostitutes (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al) would have you to believe, this has very little (if anything at all) to do with racism. Permit me an informative illustration.

As I similarly noted years ago, between the years 1882 and 1968 the Tuskegee Institute reports that 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States. According to FBI data, in 2010 alone there were 6,470 blacks murdered in the U.S. According to the same data, when the race of the homicidal offender is known, over 90% of the time, blacks are victims of blacks.

The vast majority of these victims are young black males. Shockingly, the CDC reveals that, for U.S. black males ages 15 to 34 the leading cause of death is homicide. What’s more, for American black males who die between the ages of 15 and 19, over half of such deaths are the result of homicide. Only 11% of whites in the same age group die due to homicide.

In April of 2012, writing about “black-on-black violence,” liberal black columnist DeWayne Wickham rightly asked, “Where’s the outrage?” He noted that, “More blacks were murdered in the USA in 2009 alone than all the U.S. troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to date.”

Wickham concludes, “But this painful truth hasn't produced the kind of sustained national outrage that [Trayvon] Martin's death at the hands of a white Hispanic [oh well, as I said, Wickham is a liberal] has generated. Why such a parsing of contempt? Maybe the people who've taken to the streets to protest Martin's killing don't care as much about the loss of other black lives because those killings don't register on the racial conflict meter.” Exactly.

Too many in America are (literally) invested in keeping the American “racial conflict meter” in perpetual distressed mode. Since Trayvon Martin’s tragic death, nearly 500 blacks have been murdered in Chicago alone. Have you heard the calls for action or justice? Where is the media?

The sad truth is, when one examines the real causes for the dreadful plight of so many young blacks in America, the conclusions don’t fit the preferred liberal narratives (along with racism, it’s guns). When it comes to Chicago, Lee Habeeb of National Review and I almost agree: Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem or a racism problem; it has a father problem.

Of course, the problem of absent fathers is not Chicago’s alone. It is played out all across America. You almost certainly know the numbers by now (I myself have told you several times before.), but here they are again: over 70% of all births among black Americans are out of wedlock. It should be needless to say, but evidently it can’t be said enough: this is a disaster, not only for the black community, but for America itself.

Of course, significant numbers of out of wedlock births among any group of people is a disaster for any community. But given the extremely high rates of homicide and out of wedlock births in the American black community, the relationship between the two dirty deeds goes beyond mere correlation.

What’s worse, the rampant sexuality and violence that has led to such tragic outcomes is not only frequently ignored, but often celebrated. The entertainment industry, peddling misogyny, violence, and crime, has been all too willing to pick up where absent fathers have left off. Thus, many young black males who are without their most significant role model look to emulate the attitudes and actions of those most pleasing to their eyes.

It is noteworthy that Trayvon Martin’s parents had long been divorced. While many accounts point out that Mr. Martin was a significant part of his son’s life and that Trayvon’s mother is a serious follower of Jesus Christ, the statistics bear out what good moral sense already tells us: teenage children without a father at home are, among other things, much more likely to participate in violent activity, and much more likely (4 times) to be victims of violence.

The truth is for children of any skin color, the presence of a loving biological mother and father in the home does more than anything else in the earthly realm to reduce poverty, crime, violence, and sexual promiscuity, along with improving education outcomes.

Until the race pimps decide that the breakdown of the family is a much more serious problem in America than is racism, I’m afraid that the tragedy that befell the Martin family will continue to play out at alarming rates.

P.S. This column was completed prior to President Obama’s July 19 speech on the Martin/Zimmerman case. In his entire speech, in which he often spoke of race, laws, and “programs” (government solutions of course), there was not one mention of the tragic breakdown of the family as the “context” for why “Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.”

Copyright 2013, 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

Where Is Daddy?

On this Father’s Day, we celebrate a dying role. With all of the problems currently plaguing our culture—crime, violence, promiscuity, poverty, divorce, drug abuse, and so on—the one thing that we as a nation could do to remedy such things most quickly would be to return fathers to their families.

You’ve almost certainly heard the sad statistics when it comes to fatherhood in America. However, the stats continue to shock: as a recent Drudge headline noted, 60% of all families in Richmond VA are led by single parents, with the vast majority being fatherless. For black families in Richmond, a staggering 84% are led by single parents.

The numbers are similar in dozens of large cities (pop. 50,000+) all across America. From Savannah to Atlanta, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, Hartford, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Detroit, more than half of all families are led by single parents, with the numbers for minorities—especially blacks, being significantly higher.

The demographics have been trending this way for decades. This begs the question, why? Why are so many American dads not married to and in the home with the mother of their children?

There are two scenarios to consider: the dads who divorce and the dads who never marry. Increasingly, it is the latter that is more common. In December of 2011, Pew Research revealed that, according to U.S. Census data, “Barely half of all adults in the United States—a record low—are currently married, and the median age at first marriage has never been higher for brides (26.5 years) and grooms (28.7)… In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just 51% are.”

What’s more, again according to Pew Research, since 1997 the percentage of men ages 18 to 34 who say that having a successful marriage is important to them dropped from 35% to 29%. While for women in the same age group, the numbers rose from 28% to 37%. According to family and feminism expert Suzanne Venker, many men have decided never to get married because “women aren’t women anymore.”

And neither are men “men” anymore. “Ever since the sexual revolution” adds Venker, “there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact.” With its lies about sex, parenting, and gender roles, the modern feminist movement that “birthed” (pun intended) the sexual revolution has been devastating to men and women alike.

Many men have been deceived into thinking that, among other things, they can have all the sex that they want without any real commitment or other consequences. Thus, it is little wonder that so many men bought into the modern feminist lies. With the explosion of pornography and the hook-up culture, and with little societal stigma to engaging in such behavior, far too many men have allowed themselves and the roles that they were created to fulfill to be cast aside. Ironically, this has led to a “neutering” of the American male. 

Many women have been deceived into thinking that, among other things, they are no different than men and can have careers and children without marriage or devout motherhood. (Certainly not all women with careers are unfit mothers, but being successful at both can be overwhelming.) Thus we end up with women in combat and many attempting or being forced to be the “breadwinners” (the vast majority of whom are poor single mothers) of the family. For the first time in American history, women outnumber men in the workforce and more women than men are obtaining college degrees.

And many women today who do marry are doing so much later and are having one child (or at most two) as they attempt to postpone, or at least “balance,” motherhood with careers. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in 1970 only 1% of U.S. births were to women 35 and older. Today that rate has increased nearly 10-fold.

Such data is especially true for white women. While the marriage rate in the U.S. is much higher for whites than for other ethnic groups, the childbirth rate is devastatingly low. So much so that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau for the calendar year ending 2012, for the first time in U.S. history more whites died than were born.

Thus, it’s not just fatherhood that is dying, but motherhood as well. And it’s not just the men and women (and the millions of children such relationships produce) who have been deceived into living such lies who suffer. What we are seeing here is the death of the traditional (biblical) family, and when the family dies, that will herald the end of our republic.   

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2013, 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