Kaepernickitis is Rooted in Lies

The athletes doth protest too ignorantly, methinks. Whether foolish NFL quarterbacks (and their like-minded playmates) or double-minded NBA athletes, the affluent agitators should direct their political and social ire elsewhere. Instead, they’ve joined their Hollywood cohorts as mouthpieces for the Democrat Party. Of course, it should come as little surprise that expensive American entertainers have made themselves tools of the perverse modern left.

Take Colin Kaepernick (“PLEASE,” his agent cries!). His failed efforts at protesting during the National Anthem were predicated upon a lie. After his initial protest in the 2016 preseason, NFL Media reported,

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

In other words, Kaepernick has bought the lies of Black Lives Matter, hook, line, and sinker. As I noted last year, the lie is this:

There’s widespread and institutionalized racism inside America’s law enforcement agencies, and black Americans are especially targeted. This racism has led to the deaths of a disproportionate number of innocent black Americans. In order to stop this heinous activity, we need more gun control legislation, more wealth redistribution, more job and education programs, and thus Americans need to elect more Democrats.

As has been refuted ad nauseam—most notably by Heather MacDonald—few things are further from the truth. The tragic truth is, the most dangerous place for a black American is not in the presence of a police officer. The most dangerous place for a black American—especially a young black American—is a black neighborhood. Again, as a 2016 report by the Manhattan Institute reveals:

· In 2013, homicide was the leading cause of death among African-Americans aged 15–35.
· During 1990–2008, for 93 percent of black homicide victims, the perpetrator was also black.
· In 2009, in the 75 largest U.S. counties, blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders, and 45 percent of assaults —despite constituting 15 percent of the population in those counties.
· In 2014, in New York City, blacks committed 75 percent of shootings and 70 percent of robberies, while constituting 23 percent of the population.
· During 2005–2014, blacks were also responsible for 40 percent of murders of police officers nationwide.

And perhaps the most shocking statistic of all: Black men in the U.S. are half as likely to die if they are in prison than if they are not. And why are these black neighborhoods so dangerous? Again, the breakdown of the black family.

It has been widely reported for years now that the out-of-wedlock birth rate among American blacks is over 70 percent. Almost always, mothers are left to raise their children alone. In U.S. cities, where the violence and poverty among U.S. blacks is most pronounced, the out-of-wedlock birth rate is even worse. For example, in Chicago about 80 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Today, only 17 percent of American black teenagers reach age 17 in a family with their biological parents married to each other. In no state in the U.S does black family intactness exceed 30 percent.

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.

Far more rampant than any form of racist police discrimination is the plague of fatherlessness in the black community. Yet, when it comes to this grave matter, Colin Kaepernick and his NFL ilk are virtually silent. In fact, with their sexually immoral lifestyles and lack of devoted marriages, many of them are doing nothing but perpetuating the problem. How many abortions and/or out-of-wedlock births are those kneeling on the sidelines responsible for?

The same moral ignorance pervasive in the NFL is present in the NBA (and virtually every other prominent entertainment arena) as well. After an announcement that they would vote on whether to attend the White House invitation to celebrate their NBA championship, the Golden State Warriors’ biggest star, Stephen Curry, in declaring he would vote against the visit said,

We don’t stand for basically what our president…the things that he said and the things that he hasn’t said in the right terms that we won’t stand for it. And by acting and not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country and what is accepted and what we turn a blind eye to.

Ahhh, “tolerance.” Of course, after winning the championship in 2015, Curry and his teammates had no hesitation in visiting the Obama White House. This is particularly revealing because, like Kaepernick, Curry has long been outspoken about his Christian faith. After winning the NBA’s MVP for the 2014-2015 season, Curry said,

First and foremost I have to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the talents to play this game, with the family to support me, day in, day out. I’m his humble servant right now and I can’t say enough how important my faith is to who I am and how I play the game.

Curry’s shoe deal with Under Armour includes shoes that contain “4:13” and the quote, “I can do all things” which is a direct reference to Philippians 4:13. In spite of his demonstrative Christian faith, Curry seems to have a “blind eye” when it comes to the Democrat Party’s support of killing children in the womb, gender perversions, homosexuality, pornography, the legal redefinition of marriage, wicked climate policies, an enslaving welfare state, and so on. How “tolerant” of him.

In support of Trump’s NBA critics, NBA commissioner Adam Silver said “I am proud of our players for taking an active role in their communities and continuing to speak out on critically important issues.” Do you think Silver would have issued such a statement if, after the infamous Obergefell ruling, NBA players would have blasted the Obama administration for such an egregiously mistaken sea-change in legal policy? Me neither. On the contrary, like the NFL, the NBA is an enthusiastic supporter of the foul LGBT agenda.

One of the greatest lies of the modern era is that consenting adults have the “right” to do whatever they wish in the sexual realm. This has led to many of the above perverse policies backed by the Democrat Party. Other than the NFL’s Ben Watson, I can think of no active professional athlete who stands against the sexual lies of the left (and actually lives it), and who outspokenly stands for the truth on life, marriage, and family.

Whatever a morally minded—especially a so-called Christian—person’s problem with the current President, those problems should pale in comparison to the immorality perpetrated by the modern Democrat Party. Instead of using their high-profile platform to speak against this evil, riddled with liberals, the American entertainment industry is typically an accomplice in this evil, or at best, complicity silent.

If you want to stand against something—especially in the political realm—Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Curry, look to your left.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, 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

Why Evangelicals—Like Me—Voted for Donald Trump and Are Sticking With Him

The Never-Trumpers of every stripe still don’t get it. Ten months after his historic defeat of Hillary Clinton, those opposed to Donald Trump—whether from the political right, left, or middle—have yet to grasp why so many Americans—especially evangelical Americans—have embraced, or at least tolerate, the politics of the Man from Manhattan. As my wife (and chief editor) pointed out when I began this piece, “It’s really a no-brainer. There was no other option.” But nevertheless, to those dulled by their disdain for Mr. Trump, let me explain again our continued support for him.

First, let me make this abundantly clear: as passionate as we are about our politics, we understand well that the cure for what ails this nation, and this world, is as far above politics as the north is above the south. Dwight Eisenhower put it well when he declared, “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America.” Thus, when we pull the lever, or tap the screen, for any man or woman, for any political office, our expectations for what they can or can’t accomplish are always tempered by the notion that our real problems are spiritual and require spiritual solutions.

Of course, such thinking stands in stark contrast to those who have put their hope in the things and the people of this world. As I’ve noted before, the left is so devoted to politics and political power because that is the chief means by which they hope to make the world into their idea of “heaven.” Virtually every dictator to rise to power has done so by promising some version of a leftist utopia. The twentieth century is replete with such tragic examples.

Is there any doubt that the biggest reason those on the left are throwing a seemingly never-ending temper tantrum over Donald Trump’s ascent to the White House is because Mr. Trump stands as a “YUUUGE” obstacle to their utopian dreams? In spite of bitter opposition in the U.S. Congress—as much as can be mustered given democrats’ historic losing streak,— the liberal media, and an inability by congressional republicans to unite on a conservative agenda, President Trump is doing much to stymie the perverse left-wing agenda.

This is especially true with the federal courts. As Legal Insurrection noted a few weeks ago, month after month—to the tune of dozens of nominees—President Trump has consistently appointed conservative judges. And as William Jacobson pointed out just prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration, President Trump could end up appointing half of the federal judiciary. Thanks to the “Reid rule,” democrats can do little to stop him. The little democrats can do, they are persistent in, using, as U.S. News reports, “every procedural tactic they can to block [Trump’s] judges.” The GOP-controlled U.S. Senate needs to get busy making sure these conservative nominees actually make it to the bench.

Using jurists who imagine themselves lawmakers—and who reject the Laws of the Law Giver—the courts have long been a favorite tool of the modern left. Thus, it has often not mattered whether U.S. liberals win elections; with the aid of the courts, their evil agenda still gets enacted and enforced. This is why the power of the U.S. President to appoint federal judges is more important now than perhaps ever before in American history. That alone is reason enough to have voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. However, there were plenty of other reasons as well.

Again, in today’s political climate, few things are as certain as this: Virtually every crazy policy, corrupt courtroom ruling, or depraved piece of legislation that plagues our political climate is a product of modern liberalism. Whether killing children in the womb, stifling small businesses, legally redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, legalizing and promoting a wide variety of sexual immoralities, criminalizing (or attempting to criminalize) the life-blood of American industry, criminalizing Christianity, de-criminalizing illegal immigration in order to help maintain a “permanent underclass” of potential voters, stealing money from one group of constituents to buy votes from another, and so on, liberals and their lackeys in the Democrat Party, the courts, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia have used their political, judicial, information, and entertainment powers in manners most perverse.

Thus, political power, especially political power in the most powerful nation on earth, is no small matter and should never be taken lightly. That is why when we vote, we always do so prayerfully. When it came time to vote last November, Michelle and I were as certain as any human being can be that the next President of the United States was going to be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Thus, as my wife put it above, the choice was a “no-brainer.”

Along with his solid efforts at remaking our courts, President Trump has already done much to support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-America agenda. His Department of Justice has reversed the Obama administration’s efforts to undermine biology and religious liberty. An executive order re-instated and expanded the “Mexico City policy” which prevents foreign groups who promote and provide abortions from receiving U.S. aid funds.

Trump and his EPA are “shredding” the foolish Obama climate agenda. “Slashing red tape at historic levels,” while saving billions in regulatory costs, the Trump administration has ended hundreds of Obama-era economic regulations.

None of this—not one single bit of it—would have happened in a Hillary Clinton (or virtually any other democrat presidential) administration. Whatever Donald Trump is, he is not Hillary Clinton. Enough said.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, 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

A Clash of Cultures: The Bourgeois vs. the Burning Man

It seems that University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax—who took her own turn melting the snowflakes at Middlebury College a few years ago —again has liberals in a lather. On August 9 of this year, professor Wax, along with law professor Larry Alexander—currently the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego—penned an Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer lamenting the breakdown of our nation’s “bourgeois culture.”

If you’re like me and need a primer on exactly what is a “bourgeois culture,” according to Wax and Alexander, the “script” of America’s bourgeois culture declares:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Shocking behavior, right? And imagine that, I’ve been steeped in the “bourgeois culture” most of my life and never knew it! In addition to pointing out what is bourgeois culture, the good professors also note that the collapse of America’s bourgeois culture has led to many undesirable outcomes, including,

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.

Again, shocking. In other words, virtually no one should be surprised by these outcomes. Conservatives across the political spectrum have been pointing to such—along with additional sad, sorry, rotten fruit of liberalism—for decades. Nevertheless, if you have an inkling of an understanding of modern liberalism, you don’t have to think too hard to imagine the outrage from the left directed at the two law professors. In their “Statement about the Wax Op-Ed” the University of Pennsylvania’s (UPenn) graduate student Union—GET-UP—condemned “in the strongest possible terms” Wax and Alexander’s “toxic racist, sexist, homophobic” conclusions.

A couple of weeks after “the Wax Op-Ed,” the UPenn school newspaper, the Daily Pennsylvanian, ran a letter from a group of 54 UPenn doctoral students and alumni. The letter went so far as to imply that Wax and Alexander—attired in their “appropriately respectable (white) diction and dress”—are white supremacists, and even attempted to link the Wax Op-Ed to the recent events in Charlottesville, VA. Imagine that. Sexual responsibility, marriage, hard work, education, respect for authority, and patriotism are “racist.” The appropriate image here would be a Dr. King “face-palm.”

To further liberal angst, in a follow-up interview with the Daily Pennsylvanian the day after her Op-Ed ran, professor Wax doubled-down in her defense of the bourgeois culture. Declaring Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior, Wax told the student paper, “I don’t shrink from the word, ‘superior.’” She added, “Everyone wants to come to the countries that exemplify” these values. “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans.” Furthermore, Wax made it clear—because when talking to liberals, one must always make this clear—that she was not implying the superiority of whites. “Bourgeois values aren’t just for white people,” she explained.

In other words, as the professors’ original piece concluded, “All cultures are not equal.” Of course this is like saying “all pizzas are not equal,” but such a conclusion flies in the face of the multiculturalism preached by the modern left. And all cultures are not equal, because all values are not equal.

Let me make clear something that professor Wax’s “Anglo-Protestant” comment implies: America’s “bourgeois values” are superior because they are, essentially, Christian values. Thus a bourgeois culture is superior because it is essentially a Christian culture, and that ultimately is why the left attacked Wax and Alexander’s piece. As The Miracle and Magnificence of America—and any other sound account of U.S. history—reveals, America was founded by Christians and upon Christian values and principles. The death, disease, and moral rot so prevalent in much of America today is there because many of us have abandoned these values and decided to make our own rules.

Nowhere is this clearer than with the obscene “Burning Man Festival” about to wind up (ends September 2) in the Black Rock Desert in Nevada. It what could be billed as a liberal utopia, the Burning Man Festival—often referred to simply as “Burning Man” (BM)—has been notoriously noted for its nude welcoming committee, “mass lesbian romps,” obscene sculptures, and human petting zoo. And what festival organized, occupied, and run by those corrupted by liberalism would be complete without an “Orgy Dome?” But it’s conservatives who are “obsessed with sex,” right libs?

Of course, rainbow flags are present in abundance, and everything LGBT is celebrated and promoted at BM. According to The Sun, “In the past, electric car pioneer Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Larry Page and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook joined the rebellious souls at Burning Man.” Given this, is anyone surprised that the modern corporate culture (especially the digital corporate culture) has essentially fully embraced the perverse sexual agenda of the modern left?

Some of the 10 principles of BM include “Radical Self-reliance” (“Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on his or her inner resources.”) and “Radical Self-expression.” Just what the world needs: more people focused on themselves. Also included among the BM principles is “Decommodification.” According to the Wikipedia page devoted to the concept, “Decommodification is the process of viewing utilities as an entitlement, rather than as a commodity that must be paid or traded for.”

So in the Nevada desert we have tens of thousands of hedonistic heathens learning how to be even more focused on themselves and learning even more about how to get someone else to pay for their stuff. Lovely.

Make no mistake about it, liberals will export the culture of Burning Man to as much of America as possible. They have already done so in just about every large city and public college campus in the U.S. To a great extent, the election of Donald Trump was an attempt to stem this tide, but as these last eight months have well demonstrated, liberals are willing to fight for their “values.” So what will it be America: the Christian values of the bourgeois culture or the godless values of the Burning Man culture?

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, 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

Yes, By All Means, Let’s Ban the Democrat(ic) Party

You may have recently read a piece similar to this by Jeffrey Lord, or likewise, an older piece by Daniel Greenfield. However, given recent events, some details not discussed by Mr. Lord and Mr. Greenfield and the fact that I spent some time on the history of the Democrat Party in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, the idea of banning the party of slavery deserves more attention.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Republican Party controlled the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency. Sensing the beginning of the end to the institution of slavery in the U.S., Democrat-controlled states began to secede from the Union. South Carolina was first in December of 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia followed in January of 1861. Tellingly, in their secession declarations, among the list of grievances, virtually every southern state referenced the election of Lincoln and the threat he and his party presented to the institution of slavery.

South Carolina declared,

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Alabama’s secession document read:

[T]he election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republican Party], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security…

As the fifth state to secede, Georgia also cited the election of Lincoln and the Republicans:

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [the republicans] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [who voted to secede]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

The Confederate States of America was formed at the Montgomery Convention in February of 1861. For the southern states—and anyone else in the world paying attention—the agenda of the newly formed (and electorally victorious) Republican Party was clear. From the creation of the Republican Party, every party platform that mentioned slavery forcefully denounced it. After the infamous Dred Scott ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the subsequent Republican platform strongly condemned the ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. Tellingly, the corresponding Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling and condemned all efforts to end slavery in the U.S.

The Republican Party platform of 1856 read,

That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

On the other hand, every Democrat Party platform from 1840 to 1860—six consecutive—was in support of slavery. Likewise, as Mr. Lord notes, “The Democratic Party opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.” If left-wing social justice “warriors” want to tear down the symbols of slavery in America, none is bigger than the Democrat Party.

But there are other reasons for tearing down the party of slavery. Slavery was a terrible sin that nearly destroyed the United States of America. Likewise, tens of millions of Americans today selfishly cling to immoral behaviors that threaten to destroy our nation. As was the case with slavery, and again because of foolish judges who are blind to the laws of the Law Giver, many of these wicked behaviors have the protection of U.S. Law. And just as was the case in the 18th century, only one major political party today—the Democrat Party—has given political cover and endorsement to the immorality that plagues America.

In a moral and just society, the killing of the unborn and the war on marriage and the family would cease. (Along with tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, why isn’t the left seeking to expunge any and all references to the racist eugenics apologist—who addressed the KKK and spoke fondly of Stalinist Russia—Margaret Sanger?) In a moral and just society, there would be no debate about who is a man and who is a woman. In a moral and just society, if a man refused to work, politicians—in an effort to buy votes—would not rush to feed him.

In a moral and just society, instead of clamoring for the removal of any reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the like, protestors should demand that rainbow-covered crosswalks that glorify sexual sin be painted over (or at least be adorned with Scripture to denote the rainbow’s true meaning). In a moral and just society, virtually everything the modern left stands for—from abortion to the welfare state, wealth redistribution, sexual perversions, gender lies, the destruction of marriage, and so on—would be banned.

Copyright 2017, 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

Why Does the Little League World Series Discriminate?

While all sound-minded Americans await the start of college football season and the NFL, to tide us over, we are soon to have the awesome American pleasure of the Little League World Series (LLWS) to enjoy. The U.S. regionals—which determine the eight American teams (in addition to the eight international teams) in the LLWS—are complete. Today, August 17, the tournament to determine the 71st LLWS champion begins. Noticeably absent again this year: girls. Someone should write a memo.

In 1974—of course, thanks to a ruling from a female judge—the Little League Federal Charter was amended to allow girls to play Little League Baseball. Since then, by my count (with the LLWS consisting of 8 teams each year from 1974 to 2000—with only 4 in 1975—and 16 teams annually since 2001), there have been 484 teams in the LLWS. Figuring 12 players per team (there are sometimes more and rarely less), that’s at least 5,808 players in the LLWS since girls were allowed to participate.

During that time, and in spite of the fact that one in seven U.S. Little League players is a girl, only 18 girls have participated in the LLWS, including only six American girls. That means that since 1974, less than one-third of one percent of LLWS participants have been girls. All of those ignorant of human anatomy, biology, and physiology—an ever-increasing number of Americans, it seems—should be aghast.

You see, the teams participating in Little League state district or sectional tournaments, and later the nation regionals and LLWS, are made up of all-star players—the best of the best. Almost always these players are selected by the local league coaches, who are almost always men. Obviously blatant and ugly discrimination has kept hundreds of thousands (Little League is the world’s largest organized youth sports organization) of 11-to-13-year-old girls from their dream of playing in the LLWS. Someone should be fired.

And in the name of all that is “fair,” how in the world—or rather the wide-wide world of sports—has ESPN allowed itself to play a part in perpetuating the perverse patriarchy that is clearly at work in the LLWS? After all, in order to show us all how sufficiently “progressive” they are, we are talking about the media outlet who gave Bruce Jenner—one of the greatest American Olympians ever—an award for pretending to be a girl. Since 2001, ESPN has covered live LLWS games. Until girls are properly represented at the LLWS, clearly this must stop.

Additionally, when are we going to see the first “transgender boy” (a girl who has delusions that she is a boy) in the LLWS? Don’t tell me that with the recent rampant growth of “transgenderism” across the U.S. there aren’t all-star level transgender boys playing on Little League teams across the U.S. and the world. After all, we have seen that girls who are allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs like testosterone—and thus help make up the sad differences with which science has shackled girls (biology is sometimes such a bigot!)—are quite capable of competing well against boys. (As the previous link demonstrates, they dominate other girls.)

Of course this also means that “transgender girls” (delusional boys) must also be allowed to compete in Little League Softball. As this trend grows, look for biological boys to take over the ranks of the Little League Softball World Series. But hey, that’s just the breaks when one is devoted to “diversity.”

Isn’t it interesting that in the name of diversity, liberals seem to have no problem with boys taking trophies from girls? Thus, why does it bother them when men supposedly take jobs from women?

After James Damore—the “knuckle-dragging troglodyte” since fired by Google—wrote his diversity memo, aptly entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” liberals circled the wagons, donned their “social justice warrior” attire, and went after another “ignorant” white man’s scalp. As you almost certainly well know by now, Damore’s “crime” was to suggest that the “gender gap” in Google’s hiring practices (men outnumber women at Google by a more than 2 to 1 ratio) was perhaps the result of something other than “implicit and explicit biases.” Perhaps, he suggested, there are (GASP!) biological factors at work when it comes to women and the tech industry.

Long before anyone ever “Googled” anything, the facts bore this out. Women now vastly outnumber men at U.S. colleges and universities. As Newsmax recently noted, “Women currently hold almost 60 percent of all bachelor degrees, and account for almost half of students in law, medical, and business graduate programs, the [Denver] Post reported.” In spite of this, over 80 percent of computer science majors are men. This has been the trend since the early 1980s, when modern computer science became “a thing.”

What’s more, how many women garbage collectors, oil-rig workers, or auto mechanics have you seen or do you know? Notice liberals rarely, if ever, complain about the lack of “diversity” in these industries. And as I’ve noted before, and even more telling than what we see within the LLWS or virtually any other sports or employment arena, in the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no human being born a female has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues. Again, and in spite of the tantrums and lies of liberalism, this is biology, not bias.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, 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