Categories
Christianity Culture Thanksgiving Truth

Feast On The Real Reasons For Thanksgiving

Rod Thomson

Given that what the Pilgrims put into motion 400 years ago remains the last best hope on earth, a shining city on a hill, we should be thankful everyday for this nation.

Rather than feast on a smorgasbord of anti-American revisionism that paints every element of our history as evil, or to just glide breezily through it as day off from work to eat a lot and watch parades and football, we should take a moment to look at the historical facts for why we have Thanksgiving Day. It’s not to launch the Christmas shopping onslaught.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the way many of us “celebrate” Thanksgiving today would leave the originators and greatest proponents of Thanksgiving — from the Pilgrims to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln — aghast and dismayed.

They all saw Thanksgiving as a time to pause and reflect in gratefulness for what was given by God. They had gone through starvation and wars, and they were giving thanks to their Creator. We live in a time of unparalleled luxury and ease — but actually giving thanks for any of it seems an ancillary reason for Thanksgiving.

Something is amiss. We need to be more than thankful for blessings, we need to be thankful to the Giver of those blessings.

Consider this natural thought progression: If we give thanks, there must be a recipient to whom we are giving thanks. We are literally giving something. Without there being a recipient of that gift, thankfulness seems an ultimately empty gesture. Thankful to an empty, uncaring, purposeless universe?

For the majority of Americans still, the thanks that is offered, is offered up to God — specifically the Biblical God. While considerably lessened, that continues from early in our history for Thanksgiving. For those who do not think Thanksgiving is a heavily Christian concept, let’s go to the national origins of Thanksgiving Day.

We start at America’s beginning of Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims. After the fall crops were gathered in November 1623, Governor William Bradford of the Plymouth Plantation colony proclaimed: “All ye Pilgrims with your wives and little ones, do gather at the Meeting House, on the hill…there to listen to the pastor, and render Thanksgiving to the Almighty God for all His blessings.”

By the time of the Revolutionary War, not much had changed in the spiritual culture of the colonies and the young nation, nor did it in the early decades that followed. In fact, Congress proclaimed National Days of Thanksgiving to Almighty God many times throughout the following years.

On November 1, 1777, Congress created the first National Thanksgiving Proclamation:

“…for solemn thanksgiving and praise. That with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor;… and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them (their manifold sins) out of remembrance… That it may please Him… to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth of ‘righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost’…”

After the war and the early bumpy creation of the young United States, President George Washington wrote his famous National Thanksgiving Proclamation on January 1, 1795. Here’s the key element:

“…our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue is…our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God, and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experienced…”

In the midst of the terrible Civil War 68 years later, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed, in accordance with Congress on October 3, 1863, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving “on the last Thursday of November, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

The proclamation included:

“…announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord… But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, by the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own… It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people…”

Lincoln’s establishment of the final Thursday in November remains today.

Don’t let the revisionists fool you. But also don’t forget actual thankfulness. Let’s remember to give thanks to the One who gives all good things, and to fight by all peaceable means to protect this amazing legacy.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
Culture Truth

Feminists Own Words Condemn Them

Rod Thomson

As waves of sexual assault and harassment allegations roll in — and the media, liberals and feminists hyperfocus on the allegations against Roy Moore because of the opportunity to flip a very solid Republican Senate seat — it’s worth revisiting what leading feminists said on the exact same issue in 1998 when it was Democrat President Bill Clinton’s position at stake.

This is important because there are a stunning number of people today who seem to have amnesia about the Clinton years — or young people today who were never taught them.

The context is that just a few years earlier feminists ardently supported the less-than-credible allegations made by Anita Hill that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. They jumped in to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in reality, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, and his labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

Fast forward to 1998 and Bill Clinton. Please read these in light of how both Anita Hill a few years earlier and the Roy Moore accusers today are treated by some of the same feminists.

⇢ “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”

⇢ “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”

⇢ “We do not know what happened in the Lewinsky case,” said Kathy Rodgers, executive director of the NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. “The only thing that is clear is that the facts are not clear.”

⇢ One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina Burleigh, Time magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

⇢ “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him,” said Susan Faludi, a feminist author, said of one of Clinton’s prominent accusers.

⇢ Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty Friedan. Or true.

⇢ After 60 Minutes interviewed Kathleen Willey that Clinton had manhandled her in private when she was seeking a job, Anita Perez Ferguson — president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said the charges were more “quantity rather than quality, in terms of my feelings…There’s no question that it’s disturbing…. But to come to any judgment now is definitely not something that I think is timely.”

⇢ “What is important for the American people to know is that there is a process in place to deal with these allegations,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. So let’s not be Roy Moore-like hasty.

⇢  “Not so many years ago, a woman couldn’t be a White House intern,” Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said in an an amazing attempt at distraction on Meet the Press.

⇢ And finally Rep. Nancy Pelosi complained that Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was causing “humiliation” by calling Clinton’s female victims before the grand jury.

There is an obvious trend here. Against Republicans, feminists say the accusing female must be believed. Against Democrats, not so much. That’s not a philosophy, that’s straightforward partisan politics. And it makes their words today truly incredible.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
Culture Liberalism Truth

Mandatory Sex Harassment Training Reveals a Basic Lack of Morals

Rod Thomson

If United States Senators need mandatory sexual harassment training every two years, we have the wrong people in the Senate.

“Making harassment training mandatory in the Senate sends a clear message: harassment of any kind is not and will not be tolerated in Congress. Period,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., the top Democrat on the Senate Rules Committee, said in a statement.

That resolution co-sponsored by leaders in both parties just passed the Senate — unanimously. Let’s just be honest: This resolution and particularly the unanimity is mostly a result of craven political pandering, not an actual conviction of the heart for wrongdoing. Who would vote against cleaning up sexual harassment? (Certainly not those who do it.)

This is a simple case of a dramatic retreat from traditional Judeo-Christian morals — something the founding fathers understood as a necessity to a free people and something that the Left, specifically but not exclusively, has been dragging us further from for more than a half century. From the sexual revolution of the 1960s and all the “free sex” to endless television shows and to movies and pop icons that portray this sort of accountability-free sex any time two people want it — we now live in a sex-drenched culture.

Look at movies. There must be 20 times more sex scenes between unmarried as married couples. How many movie scenes have we seen where the hot woman struggles at first against the hot man after the dramatic lead-up of sexual tension, only to give in to her supposed animal lusts and we get another obligatory sex scene? And almost every movie has to have some obligatory sex scene, whether it is in any way necessary to the plot or not.

Or look at leading female pop singers today: Katy Perry, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Pink, Arianna Grande, Rihanna, even of late Taylor Swift. Virtually every top pop singer with the notable exception of Adele is hyper-sexualized, showing body parts that would have been considered indecent and unacceptable 60 years ago. This says nothing of the frequently hyper-sexualized lyrics. Then look at their concert-goers. A lot of girls and young women idolizing them. What’s the message there?

The female pop stars of today have been trained that to get ahead you have to bare almost everything. The message seems to be that women are objects. Is it any wonder that Hollywood is chock full of men who think of women as sex objects? Guaranteed this goes on in the music industry also. And it ripples throughout the culture.

Or look at some of the biggest TV sitcoms of the past 20 years, shows that make an impact on the culture. The Big Bang Theory, 30 Rock, Friends, Seinfeld are or were full of talented writers and actors. And they all were just ripe with sex jokes and endless sexual promiscuity. Friends was known for all of the characters sleeping with one another at one point during the run. There were no debates about whether it was morally right or wrong to have one-night stands. Everyone does it! Everyone wants it! Get lucky tonight! Score! The most insipid message is that it is just accepted as what everyone does.

Or look at standup comedians. The vulgarities and crotch-grabbing sex jokes make most of them impossible to watch. So maybe don’t look.

Or look at how Playboy founder Hugh Hefner was just lauded at his death as a trailblazer who empowered women. Why? Because he ran the first major magazine with glossy pictures of naked women. He lived in the Playboy Mansion and married women 50 years younger than him. Celebrities by the truckload went to good ol’ Hugh’s mansion or appeared in the magazine in some form. He made it by essentially paying young women to take their clothes off so his photographers could take pictures. And he is lauded. What does that say? Is it any wonder that such a disgusting man as Harvey Weinstein thrived for decades in this environment?

 

The decline of Christianity and rise of the sex revolution

This ongoing desensitization of the American culture, both men and women but particularly men who are biologically driven much more by visuals, makes all of the sexual harassment we are seeing more likely and more common. It’s as predictable as math. Totally wrong and immoral, but predictable based on unconstrained human nature. It’s why virtually all nude magazines are of women and most pornography is consumed by men. It’s why women are largely those objectified by men, not vice-versa.

Men and women are different. Hence the appeal of Playboy magazine and now endless online porn.

Hefner played on that and launched the cultural mainstreaming of objectifying women’s bodies. We’re now beginning to fully reap the fruits of this folly of jettisoning Christianity and basic, cultural Judeo-Christian morals.

Naturally, all of this sexuality sends a big green light to men who are not grounded in any moral base — which almost always requires religion.

When the culture rested on Judeo-Christian moral norms, none of these things that are considered normal now were acceptable. Of course they still happened. But they were much less common because the culture broadly disapproved. Men were supposed to protect women, not prey on them. That protection sentiment is now considered sexist and patriarchal by the same worldview that has pushed this culture from the sexual revolution onward.

Religion constrained women from publicly flaunting intimate body parts to further their careers, and religion constrained men from seeing every woman as little more than a sex object and possible one-night stand. Human nature requires restraints.

It’s actually the type of freedom our founders expounded on.

“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” John Adams

“Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” George Washington

“The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence.” Noah Webster

“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.” Continental Congress, 1778

Perhaps morality can be accomplished in a culture outside of religion. There’s just not much evidence of that. And we’re seeing that reality play out.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
College Culture Liberalism Race relations Truth

Well, Identity Politics Has Ruined Halloween

Rod Thomson

Halloween has gone from being a time for kids to dress up — and a kind of creepy and uncomfortable time for adults to dress up and drink and act like kids — to a minefield of political correctness that would require a team of Army sappers to navigate without politically incorrect explosions ending careers.

This year’s increased round of dizzying intersectional dogma for Halloween came as Redbook and Cosmopolitan responded to an article by Sachi Feris in raceconscious.org (a wonderful site, surely.) Feris wrote that her five-year-old daughter wanted to be Moana. But well-indoctrinated mommy fretted that would be “cultural appropriation.”

Her five-year-old’s second choice was just a problematic: Queen Elsa from the movie “Frozen.” Mom Feris wrote “I had some reservations regarding both costume choices…about cultural appropriation and the power/privilege carried by Whiteness, and about Whiteness and standards of beauty,” she wrote. This went viral on liberal mommy Facebook groups, where white moms everywhere realized with terror they couldn’t find a way out of the racist maze.

I’m sure that somehow makes sense in Feris’ mind, or she is just regurgitating what has been forced down her throat until she believes that two plus two sometimes equals five. (Read 1984!) But the obvious conundrum was that her white daughter would be racist if she wore Moana because it would be cultural appropriation. But the girl would also be racist if she wore Else because of her white privilege and oppressive history.

So Redbook and Cosmopolitan magazines gave some very lectury advice to moms of white girls (everyone else is apparently fine) that offered such head-spinning contradictory expectations that it would be better to just stay home.

The uberfeminist magazines helpfully explained to ignorant, privileged white moms how to properly dress their girls this halloween regarding Disney princesses — those dangerous Disney princesses! — without: 1) being racist; 2) appropriating minority cultures; or 3) perpetuating white supremacy.

So yeah, like Feris realized, it’s a very small window.

 

Intersectional dress Gestapo provides guidelines for Halloween

Here’s how it works.

The magazines tell white moms to avoid costumes outside their race. That’s the first one. So Moana is super-duper popular right now with little girls. But the dress nazis say, don’t do it! Why? It’s cultural appropriation. Duh. What’s wrong with you?

OK, for the unwashed outside our superiors on the Coasts and campuses, cultural appropriation is where, say, a white person wears dreadlocks. They can rightly get bullied and beat up by people of color because they are appropriating a non-white cultural appearance. Yes. It happens. Check YouTube. But the definition is as expansive as a non-white deems it to be because they have moral authority, according to the deep-fried insanity known as intersectionality.

Now some major confusion occurs on this point because we have been lectured by the same lefty elites for decades about the glories of multiculturalism, that all cultures are equally fantastic and that we should appreciate and enjoy other cultures. Under that rubric, one would have thought that honoring a Polynesian princess (even a fictional one where an island comes to life) would be a very good thing for people of other races to do— imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

But no, you racist!

It seems according to the dress cops, that we cannot truly appreciate the Polynesian culture (failure of the tourism industry) and pretending we can for a few hours just belittles that culture. It’s offensive. If you’re white, you wouldn’t understand because you are the oppressor.

The Exorcist girl’s head didn’t spin this badly. Please understand, this is not some exception. This is the growing rule.

 

College campuses hotbeds of intersectionality

It really blew up two years ago nationally — but had been driving its weedy roots into campuses for years — when longtime Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis and his wife, Erika, were forced out of their faculty-in-residence positions because they thought students should be treated as adults during Halloween — and, gulp, either not take offense or discuss the issue like civilized people.

Erika, an early childhood education expert, opposes adults “over-policing” children’s behavior. She is a card-carrying liberal, as is her husband. Yale administrators for intercultural affairs sent a campus-wide email telling Yale students to avoid “culturally unaware or insensitive choices” for Halloween costumes. Erika responded with an email of her own, agreeing with “genuine concerns about cultural” appropriation and applauding the “spirit” of trying to avoid hurting others. But she asked whether students were well-served by administrators over-policing student norms.

“Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity — in your capacity — to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?” she asked. “Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”

Pretty reasonable…well, not today when reason has left the room. But Erika added this from her husband: “Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society.”

Well that seems like pretty darn good advice. So naturally, there were riots. The pitchforks and torches out to storm the castle. This was in the petition signed by endless students and jelly faculty:

“You ask students to ‘look away’ if costumes are offensive, as if the degradation of our cultures and people, and the violence that grows out of it is something that we can ignore…we were told to meet the offensive parties head on, without suggesting any modes or means to facilitate these discussions to promote understanding.”

How can we talk with people who disagree with us without someone to lead us?!? These students seem beautifully molded to be either tyrants or slaves, but hardly free people.

Campuses everywhere are being proactive to “protect” their students in this minefield.

It is so complicated, a magazine published by Ohio State University created an entire flowchart called “Is Your Costume Racist?” to help students dress without offense. They key question through the chart is: “Are you white?” If yes, that changes everything. In the chart, the only costume where there is no issue on race is “Does it make fun of Donald Trump?” Flow part arrow points to: “Do it!”

Just a one-off? I keep saying, this thinking is a contagion on college campuses. The University of Texas created a 29-point checklist for dressing for Halloween without offending. The University’s Bias Response Team  — I am not kidding, this is rampant — urges students to report any “party with a racist theme.” Of course, as we can see, determining what is not racist according to the dress cops is all but impossible.

Bottom line, best to just stay home and eat broccoli.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
College Culture Gender Liberalism Politics Transgender Truth

The Democratic Party’s Intersectional Path to Destruction

(Part II in a series on intersectionality.)

by Rod Thomson

The psychosis of intersectional theory creates a terribly destructive pathway, and one that is duty-bound to ensnare those who participate in it and those who try to politically benefit from it. This will lead us directly to what may be a tributary in the river that could actually drown the Democratic Party as we know it today.

Intersectionality is the delusion positing that in the daily operation of life, there are only the innocent oppressed and the evil oppressor. The always-oppressor is white males. All other categories are varying degrees of oppressed, and derive grievance authority depending on the intensity of the oppression according to intersectionality.

In Part I on intersectionality last week, we explained the myth that endures that America is crammed full of oppressed groups — from gays to women to blacks and Hispanics — and pointed out how that simply is not true.

For gays and women, they are demonstrably thriving like no time in history and like almost nowhere else in the world. The data is irrefutable and the conclusion means, by definition, they are not oppressed. Thriving people are not oppressed people. Blacks and Hispanics in the middle and top of the socioeconomic scale are also doing better than anywhere. Those suffering at the bottom are simply succumbing to the reality of three choices: not graduating high school, not waiting to have children until marriage and/or not getting a job. Those choices impact the same across races.

So in conclusion, among the Big Three on the intersectionality chart (there are many smaller ones) there is definitively no oppression by the only group deemed to be oppressors: white males. In fact, white males as a group, are doing relatively poorer than 50 years ago. Not very good at oppressing.

However, the intersectionalists persist. And they resist. And…etc.

This has taken hold more deeply in academia than most Americans may realize. Traditionally, the cause célèbre on college campuses today, becomes the policies of tomorrow. However, there have generally been truths to those in the past. During the anti-War protests in the 60s that led to the military dismantling of the 90s, the underlying truth was that war is indeed terrible. What the protests missed was that sometimes it is necessary in pursuit of good. War is horrible but war to defeat Nazism is necessary.

Democrats try to ride the intersectionality beast as it is the ultimate outcome of the identity politics the party has disingenuously cultivated for decades to win votes, pitting “aggrieved” Americans against each other. Democrats have been setting blacks against whites, Hispanics against whites, women against men, the poor against the rich, gays against straights, for a long time as a way to get the support of the aggrieved groups.

That the radicals have expanded it to include disabled against abled-bodied, fat against slim, Muslims against Christians and so many other categories, should hardly be a surprise. And that they want to fortify it as some sort of natural law is also not surprising. Radicals — particularly those surrounded in an insulated environment with other radicals, such as college campuses — don’t always think straight.

This is the thinking behind “white privilege.” Not choices, skin color. In fact, if intersectionality were honest — and it is just about as opposite of that as possible — the real oppressors would be Asians and “Asian privilege” would be a thing. But it’s not — nor should it be!

 

The impossible allies

Intersectionality grew out of Marxist-feminist critical theory concepts — both of which have comfortable homes in the identity politics-driven Democratic Party. But it ends up clumping together some of the most impossibly opposed views as though they should be allies.

This theory requires LGBT activists to stand shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with Muslim advocates of Sharia Law — the very law that would have them executed for being gay — in opposition to white males, who (in America anyway) are largely in favor of live and let live towards gays.

Blacks must stand in solidarity with African Muslims who openly promote and practice slavery today — demanding that whites who did not ever own a slave apologize and pay reparations to blacks who never were slaves.

Low-income working class Hispanic women stand with President Obama’s daughters against the white patriarchy — even though the Obama’s girls represent the very opposite of oppressed with opportunities few one-percenters could even dream of, and really have nothing systemically in common with the working class Hispanic women.

It gets a little head-spinning at times.

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a renowned liberal, sees intersectionality as a platform for the growing anti-semitism of the Left. It makes sense as Jews in this country (for this purpose, usually considered white by intersectionalists) do exceptionally well. That cannot be because of personal choices, only oppression can account for it, therefore they are oppressors. Dershowitz also calls intersectionality the “phoniest academic doctrine I’ve encountered in 53 years.” That covers a lot of specious academic doctrine.

But, you see, he has no standing — even no right — to voice such opinions to the aggrieved group of intersectionality because Dershowitz is Jewish.

 

Intersectional death of a party?

But phony doesn’t mean harmless. What it means practically is that individuals in aggrieved groups need take no responsibility for poor decisions in life. The resulting consequences are always blamed on the oppressors.

However, before this cancer runs its course, intersectionality could turn out to be a fatally destructive force to those trying to harness it. It is a cancer in the country, but more specifically in the body politic of the Left, encompassed most formally in the Democratic Party, because it is an insatiable beast, eating away at its host.

Although intersectionality is built upon, and aggressively uses identity politics, the ultimate practical problem is that society, culture and relationships have never been improved through identity divisions. In fact, they are all generally made worse. Consider that under intersectionality, a white person and a black person cannot truly be friends, because the theory itself assumes at bedrock that the white person is an oppressor and the black person is oppressed. And that is true without exceptions because it is based on unchangeable genetic skin color. Oppressor and oppressed cannot be true friends.

Further, there is no way to ever fix this dynamic of the powerful oppressor crushing the weak, under the theory. It is genetic. White. Males. Genetics. So the prescribed course of action is to “be aware” of it — whatever that may mean, and whatever “it” is — and then the oppressor must censor himself in the presence of an oppressed.

So a white male must shut up at all times, supposedly unless it is with only other white males. If a woman or a black or a gay or a Latino — or definitely a black lesbian — is present, by dint of genetics she holds the high moral ground and cannot be disagreed with. But even the black lesbian may need to shut up in the presence of a disabled, overweight Native American lesbian. That person scores higher on the oppression scale.

Seriously, this is exactly what is taught on more and more campuses.

Do you wonder sometimes why certain people tell others to shut up during actual discourse on an issue? Just shut up! What kind of debate is that? Well in intersectionality there is no debate, just right based on genetics. They simply make no pretense of an argument. So the infamous gay coffee shop owner in Seattle that made the pro-life Christians leave continually told them to shut up when they were asking questions. Non-stop shut up. Antifa tells everyone to shut up — verbally and physically.

The longer this poisonous theory persists, the more a certain type of college-educated American will believe they have a natural right to shut up people who disagree with them — the exact opposite of the First Amendment and the founding concept that all men are created equal. Everyone not a white male, who has imbibed this theory (which is a minority but growing) feels entitled to shut down anyone lower in the hierarchy, particularly if they use wrong-speak.

Given this, the political party that embraces intersectionality (as it has identity politics for decades) is almost destined to ruination. The longer the Democratic Party has insisted on splitting and pitting Americans against ourselves, the overall worse they have done at the ballot box. It reached a critical point in 2008 and the Democrats have since been decimated in Congress, in the White House, in state legislatures and in governorships across the land. It wasn’t just that Obama was a bad president, but that he was the first totally identity-driven president. Americans liked electing a black man. They didn’t like what he stood for in office.

Intersectionality makes their fall in elected officials problem even worse. In fact, impossible. Because it involves Democrat against Democrat in the intersectional hierarchy. Democrat demographics dominate in these aggrieved groups. Meaning there becomes a genetic hierarchy within the Democratic Party.

The more popular intersectionality has become, elevating identity politics to an ever uglier level, the more race-baiting and bigotry we see. And, the natural ugly responsive rise of white supremacy. Seems obvious that the natural result of that original ugliness of telling all whites they are bad because they are white would lead to an ugly backlash?

In this situation, Republicans can own the mantle of Martin Luther King and his vision for a colorblind society where people are judged on their character and not the color of their skin. That would send the identitarians into shrieking apoplectic fits of rage. But it would be true, it would be powerful and it would be American.

Rod Thomson is an author, TV talking head and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
Culture Government Politics Truth

Moral Clarity: Get the Feds Out of Bathrooms

Rod Thomson

Sometimes it is astonishing to see where we are as a country, that somehow we cannot find moral clarity on the idea that a man should not be allowed to use women’s or even girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.

But that is where we are.

First, perhaps, it would be good to clarify what transgender actually refers to. This will take a moment, because even on this point, clarity is elusive.

According to Wikipedia’s rather extensive entry on transgenderism, there is this to get the enlightenment rolling:

“…in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity. Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation: transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc., or may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable.”

Ok, there really is no clarifying the absolute hash we’ve made of gender identities and sexual proclivities deemed alternatively acceptable.

However, there is some moral clarity to be had on this issue.

 

Fundamental right and wrong

Common sense dictates this most obvious of all statements: A male with all the physiological package of a male should use the male bathroom and locker room facilities, regardless of how he feels about himself at any given moment. Science, decency and “well, duh” normal thinking dictate this truth.

Alas, that is not what President Obama thought when he ordered the schools to open up bathrooms, locker rooms and showers — the news accounts just focus on the bathrooms — to transgender people. I suspect most Americans are not buying into this, at the moment, but enough activists are that they provided cover for friendly media coverage for the policy.

However, all we need to do is think this through clearly, stepping away from power politics and emotional appeals based on a tiny number of people, to find clarity.

These laws pose an existential threat to women and girls. The threat does not have to come from transgenders, although it may. The laws themselves open pedophile portals, avenues for voyeurism and worse. Despite what you may hear, be guided by this reality: Most teen girls are not going to be comfortable changing and showering with anatomical boys — regardless of how the boy may identify.

 

Rights right and wrong

The media coverage of Trump overturning Obama’s Title IX guidance on transgenders using the bathroom of their choice, and other single-sex school facilities (which would be politically translatable beyond schools) is labeled transgender rights or LGBT rights. So naturally, Trump is seen as taking away rights.

But that is the wrong label, even wrong concept.

The word “rights” invokes powerful feelings and desires. There are rights we have as humans. Thomas Jefferson and other founders called them “unalienable rights,” meaning they cannot be separated from the person. They saw them as given by God to every man (yes, a huge error, now corrected, was committed on the point of slavery for the sake of colonial unity) and government cannot give or take those kinds of rights. They are inherent in being human.

The founders embedded this understanding in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The founders did not see governments as granters of rights, but as the largest threat to squash rights. They had, and still have, history on their side in that assessment.

Government makes laws determining what is legal and illegal. Sometimes, they make something legal that abridges the rights of others. Society at times agrees that this tradeoff is worth it (taxes, for instance) while other times society is rancorously divided (legalized abortion) for instance.

These laws are not unalienable. What government can give (Obama’s guidance) government can take away (Trump’s reversal) because those are simple executive policy decisions. No one’s rights were infringed on the reversal.

However, we have changed our definition of rights in recent years — often for political gain — and split rights into special subgroups. That resulted in pitting some groups’ rights against other groups’ rights through laws and policies. Gay rights conflict with religious people’s rights. Transgender rights conflict with women’s and children’s safety rights. And so on. This has created tremendous conflict in our nation — to the benefit of a select few.

If we could return to basic rights as unalienable from every person — no subgroups — we would be in a better place to judge what is best for all in laws and policies, and gain the added benefit of increased unity.

 

Clarity becomes easy

With this understanding, we return to the question of transgenders — and whoever else — being allowed to use bathroom facilities opposite of their genital package.

Realistically, women using men’s bathrooms and showers would be extremely rare, and it would be even more rare to be seen as threatening to men if they did. So the real danger is men using women’s facilities, and this is where there actually is a potential rights infringement.

Under the rubric of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” being comfortable in the bathroom is not a right. It is not unalienable, and being uncomfortable does not undermine the Declaration’s declaration. This is true for transgenders in bathrooms and it is true for non-transgenders in bathrooms with someone of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t fall in the rights category.

However, any man or men being allowed in the same changing and showering facilities with women, does pose a very real physical threat. As much as we might want it to not be the case, everything we know tells us that a statistically significant percentage of men are sexual predators, primarily against women and girls, but sometimes against boys, too. The percentage of women in this category is not zero, but is negligent.

Government legally allowing potentially predatory males into women’s facilities presents a very real physical-harm threat against women and girls. That becomes an infringement of a basic human right to life, ensconced in the Declaration, throughout the Constitution, and accepted by the American public.

On this basis alone, allowing transgenders — but understand, please, that means any man who chooses — to have access to women’s bathrooms violates basic human rights we all agree on. And on that basis alone, Trump was right to reverse Obama’s policy.

Categories
Christianity Culture Truth

Killing the Boy Scouts Portends Much Worse

Rod Thomson

While everyone was watching the wild histrionics of 109 people being delayed entry into the country for a day or two last weekend, something of much larger and darker import happened.

The Boy Scouts of America changed its policy to allow transgenders to join, thereby lodging another nail in its own coffin. The mother of an 8-year-old New Jersey girl, who now is identifying as a boy, filed a civil rights complaint after her daughter/son was kicked out for being a girl. A mere week later the Scouts caved. A once great organization now riven by craven political correctness and bullied into submission by the powerful LGBTQ activist community is being relegated to history.

Homosexual boys were allowed to be Scouts in 2013. Scout leaders can be homosexuals as of 2015. And now in 2017 children can join based on whatever gender identity they are choosing when they sign up — not what they were “assigned” at birth (you know, by having a penis or vagina.)

This means a child born a girl, but choosing to identify as a boy, can join the Boy Scouts. To be clear — because clarity is difficult to come by in this moral morass — she’s a girl. I can identify as a young black slave woman living in 1760. But I’m still a middle age white male living in 2017. Reality does not change because we identify it differently. Reality remains reality.

Except apparently in our inside out, upside down culture of post-modernity, where reality is what we choose to call it, or not call it. Your call.

 

The destruction train

Yes, it’s all quite insane. But it is also deeply destructive, something few people want to say out loud. It’s destructive of the individual — no reasonable person should think it is healthy for parents to allow or even encourage a confused 8-year-old girl into being a boy, or vice-versa. It’s destructive to an organization by utterly changing its nature and character. And it’s destructive to the nation by forcing citizens into dangerous and uncomfortable positions to appease the tiniest of gender-confused minorities.

And this train of destruction is bearing down on the Church.

Make no mistake. The church — not the mosque or the synagogue — is coming into the crosshairs of the LGBTQ activists. Well-heeled and politically connected LGBT activists have won every single cultural war they have started. Occasionally, they are set back in a battle temporarily. But eventually, and usually sooner than later, they get everything they want. Just consider the speed at which we arrived at accepting gay marriage. Even Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama did not accept it (publicly) 10 years ago.

Christian parents were a disproportionately large percentage of the Boy Scouts. The year after caving into the LGBTQ demand for gay Scout masters, Boy Scout membership dropped 7 percent. But Cub Scout membership, the feeder band for the Boy Scouts, dropped 14 percent. That’s a pretty sharp decline over just a few months.

 

Fighting back

Meanwhile, Trail Life USA, an overtly Christian alternative to the decaying Boy Scouts, saw its membership go from 0 to 20,000 in its first two years, with chapters in 48 states. The next year, it grew by 10,000 more. A high percentage appears to be former Scouts, or those who would have joined the Scouts. This trend will continue and the Boy Scouts will slowly die out or become some perverse rump organization of what they used to be.

With this standard of virtue, morality and traditional manhood now shriveling up in the dustbin of history, with marriage now redefined and undermined, and with schools and public places being forced to allow men into girls bathrooms and locker rooms, there remains one big fat target yet to be attacked head on: The Christian Church.

Some of the old mainstream denominations that have become more clubs in many respects than anything resembling a biblical church, will be the first to go. They are the low-hanging targets for the transgender part of LGBTQ. Sadly, many of these are only tangentially tethered to Christianity through historical tradition, not through any notions of Christ-centered faith. Some are already ordaining gays as priests and ministers and it shows as their membership continues to decline — just like the Boy Scouts. Destruction.

The real targets will be Evangelicals and Catholics, the backbone of Christianity in the nation. Be ready, brethren. Be prepared to give a defense. Stand firm all. Because they are indeed coming for you.

For us.

Categories
Christmas Culture Truth

Slicing Through the “Real Meaning” of Christmas Nonsense

by Rod Thomson

Two things happen culturally every Christmas nowadays.

  • We are treated to a parade of cultural insights on the “real meaning” of Christmas
  • We get lectured by the smart set about how Christmas is an amalgam of pagan holidays just overlayed with Christianity and isn’t even the right time of year for Jesus’s birth!

Yes, we get it. Christians are toothless Neanderthals to the elite coastals and wannabes. Turns out, we actually know the history of Christmas, and the timing, which is why we talk about it being the time of year we celebrate Jesus’ birth. Enough with the smug condescension already. Thank you.

As to the real meaning of Christmas, it easy to understand why Charlie Brown was confused. There is ton of effort to call it everything except what it is. Christmas’ real meaning is usually postulated along the vague lines of being thoughtful, giving gifts, family togetherness, a general benevolence. Each one is dramatically stated to be the real meaning of Christmas. These are all wonderful, but no, they are not the real meaning.

Frankly, it’s kind of a lot of effort to go through when the actual reason for Christmas just stares slap in the face. So let’s just swing the scythe through all the dense overgrowth of weedy nonsense and get to the actual “real meaning of Christmas.”

 

Unparallel-able act of love

The bottom line: Christmas is a celebration of the one true God leaving eternity and tucking himself into the flesh of a man to save all mankind — an act of sacrificial love both unparalleled and unparallel-able.

Why? God is defined as always having been and always will be. No beginning. No end. He existed before material creation (where did that infinitely dense mass that exploded at the Big Bang exist if all of time and matter consisted within it?) and he will exist after material creation in whatever iterations there may be.

God, consisting of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is spirit by biblical description. He is often described as abiding in the spiritual realm, but I rather more think he is the spiritual realm.

Mankind screwed up creation with unending torrents of sin. Still do. Christmas celebrates the moment at which the world began to inexorably change forever. Eternally. The birth of Christ began the chain of events that included his perfect, sinless life, his teaching of the kingdom of God, his unjust crucifixion and his ultimately striking down death by rising from the grave to return to the spiritual.

Christ built the bridge over an uncrossable chasm. The construction launched with his birth and it is eminently worth celebrating with great joy and hope.

So as we all watch and see and hear the platitudes about the real meaning of Christmas, remember there is only one right answer. The remembrance and celebration of God changing history through the greatest of all acts of sacrificial love.

“And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Luke 2:8-14

 

Categories
Abortion Christianity Culture Politics

Is Hillary Clinton the Best Choice to Reduce Abortions?

The Christian Post recently ran a provocative column entitled Hillary Clinton Is the Best Choice for Voters Against Abortion

It’s not click bait. The author means it. And so it demands a corrective reply.

First, we need to understand with laser clarity that abortion is not a woman’s choice. It is a deeply immoral, gender-indifferent act.

Eric Sapp, the author of the piece, does not dispute that and is apparently pro-life. His primary point — other than seeing hypocrisy only in Republicans — is that statistically abortions always rise under Republican presidents and stay steady or decline under Democrat presidents. He claims this makes sense because Democrats are better at reducing poverty — a metric associated with abortion.

Sapp writes: “Abortions rose steadily during the tenure of the first ‘pro-life’ Republican President, Ronald Reagan. They reached their highest level under President H. W. Bush. Abortions then dropped dramatically under President Clinton, falling to 60% of the high under his pro-life Republican predecessor. That downward trend stalled during most of President W. Bush’s tenure, and remained basically flat until the final two years of his term when Democrats retook Congress. And then abortions plunged again under Obama, falling to their lowest point in 40 years.”

This summary paragraph presents several fallacies and a few simple falsehoods. But it is exemplary of the overall dishonesty of the article.

  • First, the statistics are dishonestly cherry-picked. The charge that abortions rose steadily during Reagan is true. But they also rose steadily under Carter, also. Sapp leaves the Democrat president out of his stats because it does not fit his conclusions. The Roe v. Wade ruling was still fairly new and the culture was going through the sexual revolution. That they rose under both presidents makes sense, but he cherry-picked only one. Dishonest.
  • Second, he is factually wrong on his assumption that they reached their highest level under George H.W. Bush, then declined under Clinton. His own reference shows abortions declining in 1991 and 1992. Both years were part of George H.W.’s presidency. Clinton was inaugurated in January 1993 and his policies kicked in in 1994 at best — four years after the decline started. So he is factually wrong using his own citation. Did he and the Christian Post think no one would check? Dishonest.
  • Third, he claims abortions “stalled” under W. Bush. That’s a fun sleight-of-hand way of just flat out lying. Abortions continued to decline six out of eight years under George W. Bush until 2006 — when the housing and banking crisis hit (propelled largely by Democrat lending policies and Republican negligence) and people got very scared. So factually wrong and dishonest. Again.

Sapp uses overarching stats, which we have demonstrated to be totally dishonest, to make a causal point, when the best they can show is correlation. He may understand this, and so he tries to create the causal link by overlaying poverty.

Here is his somewhat snooty case:

“Want to guess which political party is more effective at reducing poverty and unwanted pregnancies? I’ll give you a hint. It’s not the ‘pro-life’ Party that in this last Congressional session alone fought to cut medical care for poor mothers and children, food programs for kids, and contraception coverage and access for women.”

He betrays a lot of his personal politics in this paragraph. But notice what is missing? And it is missing from the rest of the article on this point.

Right. Statistics. He provides no links to any stats. He does not even try to back it up like he dishonestly tried to in the previous paragraph I quoted. Apparently, he actually uses his own fallacy for proof by claiming Democrats reduce poverty because they talk about reducing poverty. Words. Actually using facts, it is clear that Democrat policies do not reduce poverty. We can take a measure of the policies from the Great Society onward and see that after trillions of dollars in transfer payments, poverty is largely unmoved.

But let’s use the author’s admittedly weak method. This chart is from Wikipedia, as his above was. (See larger here.)

number_in_poverty_and_poverty_rate_1959_to_2011-_united_states

Looking at poverty overlaid with Republican and Democrat presidents, we see no correlation. Actually, poverty declined under Reagan, rose under H.W. Bush (recession) declined under Clinton, was flat under W. Bush and actually has risen under Obama.

So it turns out there is a good reason he did not use any facts to back up his smug “Want to guess which party…” sentence. There are none.

This is a wholly dishonest article, from logic to facts to reason. It’s sad that the Christian Post published it as something legitimate.

Categories
Culture Politics Truth

Why Negative Campaigning? Freedoms and the Mirror

A recent Republican primary for the Florida state Senate race in a Republican district offered the perfect storm for why people get so frustrated with political campaigns — including local ones. But it was also revealing about who we are and why such yuck campaigns are a constant in a close race.

There were five candidates, four of which were already office-holders and had good reputations in the community. It was a very strong field. Among the favorites in the conservative district, there were really only marginal position differences when looked at from the view of the broad electorate.

Because my family and I are what is known as “super voters” — we vote in all elections — we are targeted with the most mailers. The curse of the responsible citizen. We got up to 12 mailers in a day, with the majority being from this one race. The majority of those were negative. Flipping through on any given day, conservative Candidate A was variously a gray-pictured corrupt mugger of the public trust or a colorfully pictured, trusted family man and veteran. Candidate B was variously a gray-pictured opposer of freedoms who was going to take all our guns away or a colorfully pictured watchdog protecting your rights. Etc. Day after day after day.

Ugh, right?

Oh yes.

The reason? Get ready

But here’s the rub. This is what free speech looks like. It’s glorious and soaring and it’s messy and disagreeable and some people have a bigger megaphone than others. It is the opposite of college campuses with their speech codes and safe zones — a terrifying look at our future. It is true freedom and that is rare in the world. If your first thought reading this is “We should outlaw or ban or restrict XYZ,” you are saying you want to reduce our freedoms. That is not a good impulse.

Always err on the side of freedom. Giving it away is easy. Getting it back is a mountain.

Further, the reason for the unrelenting negativity in campaigning is that it works. And that’s completely on the collective person in the mirror. The electorate — which is not always the other person — can be so relatively uninformed, that perceptions are easy to shape through these simple mailers. It’s why yard signs with just a candidate’s name are so ubiquitous during elections season. Name recognition alone translates to votes. That also is on the collective person in the mirror.

So, the formula is to tear down the main threat to your election through negative ads, send out mom and apple pie pieties about yourself and plant hundreds of yard signs. It’s superficial, it’s tried and it truly works.

So remember next time you get into a gripe fest over negative campaigning; they are done because they work. They can be nauseating and effective. But we allow them as an option because we cherish freedom over government-enforced niceties and agreement. Attempts to clean up negative campaigning through restricting money or any types of speech must result in curtailing some of those freedoms.

Let freedom reign, including its ugliness. It is the best option.

 

(NOTE: I chose ads from the Obama-Romney campaign because neither are running this year and both are demonstrably more decent individuals than this year’s options. Yet both suffered withering negative attacks for the reasons stated above.)