Is Donald J. Trump not a serious candidate? Or is the Republican Party not a serious party?

Thomas Sowell: Misinformed Electorate, Not Trump, Is Real Danger

Is Donald J. Trump not a serious candidate? Or is the Republican Party not a serious party?

These attacks on Donald Trump’s supporters (and conservative voters in general) by the political elite are the culmination of the DC Establishment’s anti-base strategy, a strategy that is destined to doom the Republican Party to obsolescence while securing the veneer of two-party politics.

Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to the Republican Party in 40 years. His candidacy represents a necessary come-to-Jesus moment for the Republican Party in which the vitriol against the DC Establishment can be accurately measured. They are afraid of being exposed.

Liberals and Libertarians hate Mr. Trump because his self-funded campaign threatens to nullify their battle cry to undo Citizens United.

The Republican elite hate Mr. Trump because he has awakened many conservative voters from the hypnotic mantra of Guns-God-Abortion-Taxes on which the Republican Party has campaigned for decades.

The Republican elite’s determination to avoid representing our interests while having nothing to show but a trail of broken promises has led some conservative voters to turn their focus to more urgent issues like border security, sanctuary cities, and immigration. Sanctuary cities and lax border security threaten our individual safety and national security, while immigration – legal and illegal – threatens to saddle the Republican Party with permanent political minority status.

Mr. Trump is wrong to say our country is being led by “very stupid people.” The Obama administration is neither stupid nor incompetent. They know exactly what they are doing, and it is consistent with their ideology.

Mr. Trump has not been a reliable conservative. It is, however, perfectly conservative to prioritize the issues that are most urgent and provide common sense democratic solutions.

Donald Trump’s conservative supporters are not spellbound delirious peasants, enamored by celebrity and improvisation. Nor are we necessarily protesting the Establishment candidates. Mr. Trump is legitimately earning our vote.

While the Republican Party has been playing politics for several decades, the Democrat Party has been fighting for the hearts and minds of the American people.

While the Republican elite respectfully disagrees with its Democrat opposition but supports their freedom of speech, the Democrat Party brazenly calls us racists, sexists, bigots, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, low-information, wrong-side-of-history, hateful, uncompassionate, unloving, unfeeling, and un-American.

Mr. Trump is the only candidate we trust to give the Left a black eye for their abhorrent behavior. The Republican elite still believe they can win if only they can convince more Hispanics of their naturally conservative cultural inclinations.

Is Donald J. Trump not a serious candidate? Or is the Republican Party not a serious party?

This post is not about gay marriage.

This post is not about gay marriage.

If you didn’t see that warhead fired months ago – if you honestly hoped the biblical definition of marriage would prevail on logical grounds – then you weren’t paying attention.

This post is about my concern for Christians who are butchering our messaging on social media. Plenty of us are publicly preaching – obnoxiously in some cases – about biblical principles and platitudes like “kindness” and “grace.” Meanwhile, the vilification of Christians has intensified (especially from many enemies of the church who disingenuously claim to “believe in God”).

As long as the humanists, the atheists, and the Left (that includes all the libertarian frauds out there) believe that their intentions and their morality are more loving than the Christian ethic, they will continue believing that Christians are hateful bigots. No amount of Christian kindness is going to convince them otherwise. In fact, the louder the preaching, the louder their venom in return.

I’m constantly told there are at least several hateful Christians out there supposedly representing all of us. I’ve never met those several Christians who demonstrate hateful or oppressive attitudes toward gay people, so until I do, I’m going to continue asserting those people don’t exist. I’m not going to perpetuate that straw-man argument by verbally agreeing with its thesis and then lament how the Christian community needs to purge these ghosts.

Christians will continue not being hateful people, but don’t be discouraged when the world continues to accuse us. Certainly, we shouldn’t be deceived into thinking kindness will win hearts and minds or earn friends among those who mock us.

Proverbs 25:21-22
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.

When somebody asks our feelings about marriage, we don’t have to give lengthy opinions. Our individual opinions are not novel, nor are they required to be original.

We don’t have to go out of our way to apologize for the perceived discrimination that we and our Christian beliefs are not responsible for.

Nothing is more insulting, nothing draws more ire, than saying, “I’m sorry you were offended.” Sorry, I’m not sorry.

If somebody who clearly hates Christians is intentionally misrepresenting what Christianity has to say about homosexuality, we absolutely should not do their homework for them. The Bible is free online, and Sunday church doesn’t sell tickets for admission.

Often, these lying liars are more informed than they reveal, and they know in their hearts they’re libeling us. Exposing them will not embarrass them or change their minds!

I’m not discouraging any apologetics tactics. I greatly admire the prominent Christian apologists. But lay opinions, micro-blogging, and petty scripture-quoting fall tremendously short of true and effective apologetics. On issues as sensitive as gay marriage, there’s no excuse for not backing up controversial rhetoric with informed sources.

I’m also not trying to suppress anyone’s mission of grace or kindness. But frankly, right now, grace and kindness have not been the church’s problem during my generation. Truth has been our problem.

Grace is a free gift. Kindness is not only reserved to the Christian domain. Your kindness may no longer reward you in a world that hates the truth.

It’s easy to sermonize to one another about grace and kindness in this difficult trial, but promoting the unadulterated, un-sugar-coated truth will cost you.

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

This post is not about gay marriage.

Get Married Already | Young Adult & Singles Ministry In Dallas

If you’re waiting faithfully, or pursuing wisely, and you’re doing everything more or less right: don’t be discouraged. Stay faithful. None of this means that there’s anything wrong with marrying later or staying single, if it’s done for the right reasons. And God is in control. Which means there’s one more reason why some people wait to get married: because God has a plan for you. He’s up to something. I’ve had friends get married later in life than they might have originally planned, and seen it all suddenly make sense: that’s who they were waiting on. That’s why it didn’t work out sooner. So stay faithful, and trust in His timing.

– JP
(With help from Kevin McConaghy)

Frankly, the Porch has spent several years teaching us that the people most worthy of marriage (and therefore the requisite dating/courtship) are the singles who are:
a) The most visible servant-leaders of the church;
b) The most visibly “recovered” re:gen addicts;
c) Those most vocally fortunate enough never to have been afflicted by any of the struggles that would undermine a healthy marriage.

If you find that person, the Porch assures you that your marriage will be a Christian fairytale.

You won’t find those principles concretely verbalized in any Porch message. Rather, these principles permeate the Porch culture.

If you are either waiting for that person or waiting to become that person, it is very possible that the Porch has blocked or stolen your marriage potential.

To every woman who says she loves Jesus –
To every woman who waits patiently for a godly man to rescue her from her singlesness as she treads water in this sea of sharks in Dallas –
It’s more likely that she’s complicit in having fostered a population of Porch men who are completely disinterested in Porch women, at least as far as marriage is concerned.

Marriage has survived millennia on far more compromising standards, with and without God’s blessing.

Get Married Already | Young Adult & Singles Ministry In Dallas

Why I’m Coming Out as a Christian – The Daily Beast

Was the purpose of Ana Marie’s “coming out” merely to defend the President from allegations of anti-Christianity? If it were indeed something more personal, then it drips of cynicism and self-loathing.

In my personal life, my faith is not something I struggle with or something I take particular pride in. It is just part of who I am.

Yes, the private Christian, public secularist. Such a unique story.

Tweeting out prayers and quotes from Scripture still feels subversive.

Scripture tends to have that effect on statism and secular utopianism.

No, I’m nervous to come out as a Christian because I worry I’m not good enough of one. I’m not scared that non-believers will make me feel an outcast. I’m scared that Christians will. 

Probably because you’re projecting your own judgmentalism on your fellow Christians.
Ever accused a conservative Christian of being judgmental?

Judge not, lest ye be judged?

Don’t lie! Jesus is listening.

The truth of this world’s impermanence also suggests that my anxiety about coming out as Christian has a perversely self-interested aspect.

No need for false humility. This “coming out” piece is saturated with self-interest.

It is true that I feel intimidated by a conservative culture that seems intent on creating boundaries around Christianity rather than open doors.

Those “boundaries” are actually the walls closing in on us, but you can’t see that when you’re standing on top of the wall with your guns drawn.

The image of Christianity and progressivism as a newly hip fusion genre—it’s fucking edgy, man—is a strong siren song.

Amen! The fusion of Christianity and progressivism is fucking edgy, manOr at least it was for those who were born in the late 1800s. Welcome to the party!
I presume the Wonkette’s next tactic will be to parade her Christianity to justify her continuing support for:

  • the mass murder of babies;
  • the government’s institutionalized theft of private wealth and property;
  • entitlement culture; and
  • the subjugation of faith-based businesses under her brand of government-approved Christianity.
Why I’m Coming Out as a Christian – The Daily Beast

Americans’ Participation in Labor Force Hits 35-Year Low | CNS News

Fitting the trend of the past ten years, the Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) has fallen to a minimum not seen since the Carter administration. While the LFPR is relied on as a labor indicator, it is nevertheless arbitrary and is proving to be more deceptive than instructive.

Why is the LFPR significant?

The LFPR is the ratio of number of labor participants (the “labor force”) to the total available lawful workers. Children and certain institutionalized populations are ignored in determining the LFPR. Non-participants, such as retirees, college students, stay-at-home moms, the physically disabled, and — most critically — the long-term unemployed, also judged in the media as “the people who have quit looking for work,” comprise the percentage of the available lawful worker population equal to 100% minus the LFPR.


Setting aside the media’s shameful judgmentalism in its abandonment of the long-term unemployed, the rationale of excluding capable workers from the labor force is absurd.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics ( estimates the LFPR for the purpose of deriving the national unemployment rate. The rationale is that the economic policymakers shouldn’t be responsible for the employment of citizens who have voluntarily become non-participants. Fair enough if the LFPR were truly independent of economic policy, but that’s clearly not the case. Because of the entangled relationship between economic policy and the LFPR, the arbitrary manipulation of policy produces real effects in the LFPR. Not accounting for these effects in the computation renders as arbitrary the LFPR.

October 2009 was the highest measure of unemployment Americans have experienced in decades. President Obama had been in office for 9 months. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “stimulus”) had been in effect for 8 months.

President Obama’s rhetoric has been such that his administration and Democrat-sponsored legislation has “created or saved” millions of jobs. In order to evaluate that assertion, October 2009 would thus seem to be a reasonable benchmark, yielding the most favorable possible valuation while also reasonably minimizing the allowance for excuses.

Here is the relevant BLS data:

03/2007: 66.2%
10/2009: 65.0%
12/2014: 62.7% (-2.3%)

NOT IN LABOR FORCE (16 years and older)
03/2007: 77.982 million
10/2009: 82.766 million
12/2014: 92.898 million (+10.132)

EMPLOYMENT (16 years and older)
03/2007: 146.320 million
10/2009: 138.432 million
12/2014: 147.442 million (+9.010)

UNEMPLOYMENT (16 years and older)
03/2007: 6.731 million
10/2009: 15.352 million
12/2014: 8.688 million (-6.664)

03/2007: 4.4%
10/2009: 10.0%
12/2014: 5.6%

Appropriating the LFPR of 65.0% from October 2009 (President Obama’s 9th month in office), today’s labor statistics would yield an unemployment rate of 8.9%, not 5.6% as the propagandists say.


Without adding any jobs, achieving 65.0% labor participation would require 5.8 million non-participants to suddenly reenter the labor force.

The lower the LFPR, the lower the unemployment rate. Job seekers need not apply.


So why is the LFPR arbitrary?

Some conservatives allege that the Obama administration is deliberately manipulating the numbers of unemployed participants and non-participants in order to show a decreasing unemployment rate. Excuses abound for not counting some of the unemployed among the participant workers.

Allegations of impropriety are unnecessary. The raw numbers provide a sufficient critique.

The LFPR was remarkably steady around 66% during the Bush administration. Between October 2009 and December 2014, the BLS reports a precipitous 2.3% decline in the LFPR from 65.0% to 62.7%.

Is there a desirable benchmark LFPR?
What does the decline suggest?
Does the decline suggest anything meaningful?

Before attempting to make any subjective judgments about the LFPR, a logical question must be asked: How low can the LFPR go and still make mathematical sense?

The employment level is objective and measurable with precision: just count the number of lawfully employed workers. Same with the total population of available lawful workers: it’s exactly the number of people who aren’t children and aren’t institutionalized. The difference is exactly the number of jobless lawful workers. Therefore, the minimum possible value of the LFPR is calculated by assigning all jobless lawful workers non-participant status, yielding an unemployment rate equal to exactly 0%.

According to the BLS data, the minimum possible LFPR at selected samples during each of the Bush and Obama administrations are calculated as follows:
03/2007: 63.3% (2.9% below official 66.2%)
10/2009: 58.5% (6.5% below official 65.0%)
12/2014: 59.2% (3.5% below official 62.7%)

So the December 2014 LFPR reported by the BLS, 62.7%, would have been a mathematical impossibility during the Bush administration, when the minimum possible LFPR was 63.3%. What would have been a nonsensical LFPR then has now become a statistical opportunity as the job market stagnates.

The critical implication is that a fixed LFPR benchmark cannot be established, as the minimum possible LFPR is a function of the employment statistics. The inability to benchmark the LFPR renders it an arbitrary metric.

Due to the persistent depressed employment level, the Obama administration has been afforded a wide margin to preside over the systematic transfer of millions of unemployed participant workers to the ranks of the non-participants.

How convenient.


According to the BLS, the 2.3% reduction in the LFPR between October 2009 and December 2014 corresponds to a coincident reduction in the unemployment rate from 10.0% to 5.6%.

Consider the fictional scenario using March 2007 BLS data in which the Bush administration manipulates the LFPR in order to artificially reduce the unemployment rate. A change in the participant status of 5.4 million lawful unemployed workers produces an instantaneous 2.3% reduction in the LFPR from 66.2% to 63.9% and a reduction in the unemployment rate from 4.4% to 0.9%.

Such a scenario is farcical. The media, in disbelief of the comically low unemployment rate, brands W the “Laziness President” at the notion of a 2.3% reduction in the LFPR. Democrats call for impeachment, justifiably so, over the blatant partisan manipulation of BLS data.

And yet President Obama has indeed presided over a 2.3% reduction in the LFPR since the unemployment peak of the Great Recession.


Despite population growth and government stimulus spending by both President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush, the employment peak achieved by Bush (146.320 million in March 2007) would not be achieved again until July 2014. Measuring from the October 2009 unemployment peak yields a recovery of 57 months.

If 1.9 million people suddenly decided to retire today, unemployment would be 4.4% at a 61.9% LFPR with 94.8 million non-participants. Contrast that with March 2007, when unemployment was 4.4% at a 66.2% LFPR with 78 million non-participants. Republicans had just lost Congress.

What is truly astonishing is the explosive growth of the non-participant population with respect to the employed/unemployed labor force:

NOT IN LABOR FORCE (16 years and older)
03/2007: 77.982 million
12/2014: 92.898 million (+14.916)

EMPLOYMENT (16 years and older)
03/2007: 146.320 million
12/2014: 147.442 million (+1.122)

UNEMPLOYMENT (16 years and older)
03/2007: 6.731 million
12/2014: 8.688 million (+1.957)

Are we really to believe that the population of non-participants grew by 14.9 million while the labor force grew by 3.1 million? That’s 1 new worker for every 5 new non-participants over the past 8 years.

None of this is to gloat about President Obama’s failures on the economy. There’s no question that President Obama inherited a downward spiral from President Bush.

But the labor market is not in recovery, as President Obama maintains. At least not in any mathematically defensible way. The numbers contradict his rhetoric.
And the numbers aren’t partisan.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (
Series IDs:
LNS11300000 (Labor force participation rate)
LNS12000000 (Employment level)
LNS12300000 (Employment-population ratio)
LNS13000000 (Unemployment level)
LNS14000000 (Unemployment Rate)
LNS15000000 (Not in labor force)

Americans’ Participation in Labor Force Hits 35-Year Low | CNS News

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Speech — The Atlantic


Is your blood is still boiling from the President’s insults at the National Prayer Breakfast last week?

John Hayward over at perfectly emulates the Left’s apologists:

C’mon, folks, all he did was insinuate that you’re permanently guilty, for the rest of eternity, for what European knights did in the 13th century. He told you to get off your “high horse” and stop criticizing Islam’s violent tendencies, because who knows – you Christians could all come boiling out of your bake sales tomorrow and launch a new Crusade or something. What are you being so touchy about?


Here, The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates provides the perfect foil for deconstructing the Left’s moral equivalence between the Crusades and the Islamic State. Or, depending on your perspective, past Christian bigotry and radical Islam.

Christians need not assume the President is impugning Christianity as a whole or their individual practice of religion in order to take offense to his parallel to the Islamic State. His statements are offensive at face value, but the reason why can be difficult to articulate, as most value judgments are. I will attempt it here.

The false assumptions key to the anti-Christian narrative are:

  • Christians are “illiterate” about their Christian heritage; and
  • Christians have no rational basis to be offended because statements regarding past Christian bigotry are rooted in historical fact.

The fact that Christianity has been cited as justification for violence and bigotry by historical figures is not a secret to the modern world, least of all, modern Christians – the militant atheists make damn sure of that.

It is not remarkable that history is rife with bigots and murderous megalomaniacs who justify their crimes in the name of religion. All mainstream religions have their radicals, as does atheism, humanism, communism, environmentalism, feminism, etc. While true, such assertions are unenlightened and pedestrian. They serve no purpose other than to inflame passions, and they have no place in civil discussion.

In accusing Christians of illiteracy, the Left is projecting its own weakness.

Whether ironically or by deliberate deceit, the Left demonstrates its historical illiteracy by failing to recognize that Christianity is the only mainstream ideology to reform itself in accordance with doctrine rather than in spite of doctrine. The justification for reforming Christian radicalism and bigotry came from within Christianity.

Islam can’t claim that, nor can any other religion or secular ideology.

This deceit is painfully obvious to millions of Americans. The deceit is twofold:

  1. When the President coopts the reformative nature of Christianity to justify his moral equivocation of radical Islam and past Christian bigotry, he mutes the progress Christianity has uniquely contributed to humanity.
  2. Atrocities justified for the sake of Islam serve as a political pretext for the President to opportunistically accuse America of blanket racism justified for the sake of Christianity. The President and his minions do not habitually distinguish between past and present racism.

It is intellectually dishonest to raise the specter of past Christian bigotry and violence in order to muster the moral courage presently needed to combat radical Islam. President Obama reminds us that our Christian heritage undermines our moral justification for combating radical Islam, when in reality our Christian values are precisely the foundation for our outrage toward radical Islam. Even the American atheist shares those values.

Americans are desperate to believe that the President is empathetic to Christian values and wishes not to be controversial, but that is simply not evidenced by his rhetoric. It is an ideological blind spot of his leftism.

The Foolish, Historically Illiterate, Incredible Response to Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Speech — The Atlantic

Plano Equal Rights Ordinance

This evening, the City of Plano adopted the deceptively named Equal Rights Ordinance by a City Council vote of 5-3 in front of an angry crowd of petitioners. I signed up as one of about 40 speakers to petition the Council to reject this ordinance. Below is the 2-minute statement I gave to the Council as well as the text of the ordinance.

Good evening Mayor and Council members. I am a Plano resident, and I am in attendance today because I want to be present when Plano decides what side of history it will be on. I’m not here to talk about boring, archaic topics like God, the Constitution, and liberty – topics our government is largely immune to nowadays. I’m here to talk about civility and human rights. I’m here to protest my city’s consideration of becoming another one of the reckless cities across the nation proposing a policy that dismisses and insults the good and fair judgment of its residents.

The proposed Equal Rights Policy is a poorly veiled attempt to divide our community along ideological lines by bestowing, with disingenuous compassion, a victimhood status to individuals who may harbor arbitrary grievances against our government and against the rational sensibilities of our community. The policy shamelessly panders to activists who seek to exploit our divisions for profit and political gain, and it seeks to invalidate the common sense of Plano residents under the guise of feelings-based political correctness, and with junk science as its implicit pretext.

The proposed Equal Rights Policy’s stated desire to expand the 1989 Non-Discrimination Policy to afford so-called “human rights” to individuals is both sweeping in its scope and coercive in its intent. The policy does not attempt to define in its DEFINITIONS section the “human rights” to which it unprecedentedly refers. Instead, the policy confers the task of defining “human rights” on bureaucrats, who may or may not be elected by and accountable to the residents of Plano, and on the judicial system, where businesses and families are at a predictable and systematic disadvantage against the influence and funding of national activist organizations. The residents of Plano have a rational basis to distrust “human rights” policies and their corresponding activist proponents who, in the modern era, have proven to be violent, intolerant political agitators, determined to bully, intimidate, and impose their will on local communities who reasonably do not share their opinion and have democratic rights as such.

I respectfully urge the Council to reject the proposed Equal Rights Policy. We, the residents of Plano, will instruct our government as to what our values are, not the other way around. The 1989 Non-Discrimination Policy continues to serve our city well and in a manner consistent with the good and fair judgment of Plano residents, as demonstrated by the various successful people who have spoken from the other side of this issue. Thank you for listening.

Plano Equal Rights Ordinance