I Dare You | Part One: Creation
I) Intro
As a Youth Pastor, I was always challenging my students to be able to articulate what they believe and why. It’s important to be able to clearly state what it is that shapes your perspective and determines your values, especially for a Christian. Otherwise, much of what a relationship with Christ brings to the table is never accessed due to an overly casual approach characterized by Biblical illiteracy and a secular mindset.
For me, I’ve got a collection of facts and truths that, taken together, form the basis of what compels me to embrace the cross and the efficacy of Scripture. And the more I study and the more I learn, the more compelling the substance of those Truths become. Recently, it’s gotten to the point where some things that I’ve learned about creation inspired me to put some additional thoughts down on paper. The result was a “dare,” more or less, extended to those who either discount Christianity as an ornamental inconvenience or a system of myths that have somehow endured over the last 2,000 years.
It’s broken down into three sections: Creation, the Resurrection and Ambition. Each segment brings to the surface a body of empirical evidence that makes it very hard to maintain the posture of a cynic. In short, I dare you to not believe…
II) Creation
Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” While some want to view creation as a cosmic accident that just happened to land in a good place, science and mathematics testify to something very intentional. In his book, “The Case For Creation,” Lee Strobel interviews Dr. Robin Collins, who has degrees in both mathematics and physics from Washington State University as well as a doctorate in physics from the University of Texas in Austin. After serving as a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University, he has spent the last decade doing research, writing, and teaching at Messiah College where he is currently serving as an associate professor of philosophy. At one point in the interview, he says:
Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to exist. The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics.1
An aggressive invitation to consider the practical Truth of Scripture The bottom line is that while some will theorize how life was initiated apart from an Intelligent Designer, they do so in a way that requires a certain precision to be in place that cannot be explained. While there are several examples of the “precision” that needs to be in place in order for life to exist, the cosmological constant is especially compelling.
A) Cosmological Constant
The cosmological constant is a mathematical value assigned to what astronomers call “dark energy.” When you look at the universe, you see things moving in a way that doesn’t make sense in that they’re things are being pushed and pulled around despite the fact that there is nothing around them. In other words, when you see a moon orbiting a planet, that makes sense because the planet has a gravitational pull that maintains that moon’s trajectory. But there are objects in space that are moving as though they’re being influenced by a gravitational force, yet there’s nothing visible to provide that force. Hence the term “dark energy” was coined to describe the obvious force being exerted upon these objects by seemingly invisible entities.
Fact is, this dark energy accounts for over 70% of our universe. And what makes that significant is that if this dark energy was characterized by a gravitational dynamic that was pulling everything in, then the universe would ultimately collapse on itself and life in general would cease to exist. If, on the other hand, this dark energy wielded a gravitational force that was too weak to temper the way in which our universe is expanding, then our solar system would unravel as would the entire cosmos.
This, then, is the cosmological constant: The value assigned to this force that continues to allow the universe to expand and therefore not collapse on itself, yet not spin out of control. Initially, astronomers believed that the cosmological constant was very large. After all, you’re going to need a big broom to move planets around.
But that is not the case.
The cosmological constant is actually very small.
How small?
One part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten followed by fifty three zeroes. Contemplate the precision of that number. And if you move the dial or change the settings in even the most incremental way, the end result is something that no longer sustains life because of the way the universe would either collapse or unravel.
B) These Are Not Random Processes
I’ve read several arguments proposed by people who want to eliminate the need for a Designer. They’ll argue that there are natural processes in place that allow for evolution. The problem with their argument is that they don’t attempt to explain the origin of those processes. They simply point to the way in which things could conceivably flow, without explaining how that flow was initiated.
Dr. Ian Musgrave is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Adelaide in Australia. He has a website called talkorigins.org and his arguments are obviously very well thought out and substantially reinforced with his academic credentials. In his article “Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations” he offers a very credible sounding rebuttal to the often quoted impossibility of an enzyme forming by chance. He proposes that the theory of life being able to start by itself should not be based on the formation of enzymes; rather it should be analyzed according to the construction of much simpler life forms. He suggests that the attention should be focused on the manufacturing of monomers or polymers – something that can be arrived at in a way that doesn’t involve the sort of mind numbing probability values associated with the fortuitous appearance of an enzyme.
At the beginning of his argument, he says, “Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.”
I would agree. These are not random processes. But the fact that it’s not random necessitates structure and order – dynamics that do not and cannot appear apart from being intentionally established by a Designer. It’s almost comical that he’s so dogmatic about how a simple life form can develop as a result of the chemical and biochemical laws that naturally exist, yet he doesn’t attempt to account for how those laws came about to begin with.
Stephen Hawking is a very well known physicist and mathematician who retired in 2009 from his position as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University after 30 years. The position was once held by Sir Isaac Newton. In his most recent book, “The Grand Design” he challenges Newton’s belief that creation necessitates the work of God by saying, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to … set the Universe going.”2
While you can’t help but be impressed with Hawking’s credentials and accomplishment, his theory seems fundamentally flawed right from the beginning in that he’s presuming the existence of gravity and from there builds his platform. But if there is no gravity, than he has no platform.
It seems to me that there are a great number of lettered individuals on both sides of the spectrum when it comes to explaining the origin of life. But the thing that tips the scales in favor of those who champion the idea of a Creator is that the individuals who passionately search for a plausible sounding explanation apart from God inevitably base their assumptions on complex processes that need to be present in order for their theories to work. It would be like me standing in front of an ATM with a random debit card attempting to determine the correct PIN in order to access the accounts associated with that card. You could only speculate how long it would take me to figure out the correct sequence of digits, but let’s suppose I did. Could I walk away with whatever cash I was able to withdrawal and say that all that was required were the four numbers I happened upon?
No.
The numbers are secondary to the technology necessary to process those numbers. Yet, in many instances, this is what some of these brilliant individuals will do when it comes to postulating their theories pertaining to the origin of life. They’ll focus on the PIN and ignore the ATM. In other words, they’ll speculate as to how certain elements came into being, but will base their models on things that, while they are foundational to their theories, are either assumed without explanation or accounted for using a level of speculation that borders on something ridiculous.
My point is that if you start with nothing, you have no gravity, you have no chemical law, you have no physical property. Your starting point consists of absolutely nothing. Scientists who assert the possibility of any kind of life form appearing as a result of random processes require the presence of these processes which, according to Dr. Musgrave, are not random in and of themselves. Hence the need for an ordered structure even in the context of the mechanisms that produce theses lucky accidents of creation.
C) Another Set of Rules
Another example of this would be Dr. Martin Rees who is an amazingly accredited astronomer that became professor of astronomy at Cambridge when he was in his thirties and has since accumulated several prestigious honors in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy and Astrophysics. He wrote a book entitled “Just Six Numbers” that identify six mathematical values that underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe. He describes these numbers as being intricately choreographed, to the point where if they were altered “even to the tiniest degree,” he said, “there would be no stars, no complex elements, no life.”3 One writer summarized what Rees was saying by explaining it this way:
Dr. Rees is a spiritual skeptic, so rather than allow the facts to point to the most obvious conclusion as far as they’re having been put in place by a Designer, instead he asserts that our universe is but one of many universes that have been generated through the ages, ours just happens to be the one where the settings are calibrated correctly. But even if what Dr. Rees is suggesting is true, you still have to have a process that’s producing these universes. You cannot effectively refute the need for an Intelligent Designer to explain any aspect of creation by proposing theories that necessitate an impetus that is ordered in any way, shape or form. Dr. Robin Collins elaborated on that kind of practice in Strobel’s book when he said, “…the skeptic needs to invent a whole new set of physical laws and a whole new set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or have experienced.”5
D) Mathematical Elegance
At the end of the day, when you make these kind of assertions that are inevitably contrary to everything we can observe in the physical universe, you no longer have science as much as you have metaphysics posing as a very weak brand of science. Yet it is not uncommon among those who would diminish those physical realities that showcase God’s handiwork. Consider the words of George Sim Johnson:
The bottom line is that the universe is exquisitely and intricately engineered to the point where the mere notion of it all coming together by chance is utterly ridiculous. The beauty and mathematical elegance of creation is so compelling in terms of the way it points to God, that to dismiss Him with theories that require massive probability values in order for them to be plausible is simply not reasonable.
There is No Referee
The Liberal disposition towards God is similar to a football player who’s on the field, playing the game, but doesn’t believe in a Referee. There are no penalties, only plays. The idea is to move the ball down the field and enjoy the fulfillment that comes from putting points on the board. That is not only his goal, it is his right and with that sense of entitlement comes the authority to define the standard by which his conduct on the field is measured.
Should someone challenge his approach, because he’s unwilling to acknowledge the Reality of a “higher authority,” he sees it as a situation where he’s being compelled to adjust his perspective according to only the traditions and preferences of those on the other team and he will look at them and demand to know why he has to play by their rules and refer to them as judgmental and fascists.
There is no Referee.
This is why any conversation pertaining to morality or politics or the cultural in general is destined to fall short of anything influential because until he’s willing to acknowledge the Reality of God, he is his own bottom line. And his philosophical apparatus will interpret anything that comes across as critical of his behavior as not only a negative appraisal of his performance, but an attack on his dominion over all that constitutes the difference between right and wrong.
There is no Referee.
Oftentimes the debate that happens between Democrats and Republicans ceases to be about policy as much as it becomes an argument about morality. The moment it becomes a moral issue, it is therefore a spiritual topic in light of what God specifies in Scripture. But if there is no Referee, than the only Standard by which moral conduct is defined and measured is whatever best promotes the humanistic agenda lurking behind the behavior being discussed. And what applies to one team may or may not apply to the other and what may be an infraction today may not even resonate as a headline tomorrow.
On the surface, the argument that defends the idea that there is no Referee can sound compelling in the way it suggests that to assert a Biblical position is to violate the separation of church and state and force a person to adopt a particular religious disposition that may or may not coincide with their personal convictions.
But the idea that there is no Referee is a religious disposition in that it establishes man as his own deity. It’s not just a question of what the Liberal doesn’t believe about God as much as it’s what they assert as an acceptable replacement for the Role that God plays in, not only determining the difference between right and wrong, but the origin of the universe, the question of life after death as well as the purpose for one’s existence. The answer to those four questions define one’s spiritual creed. Whether you answer those questions according to the Christian faith or a humanistic worldview, both are “religious” viewpoints. And to strip our nation of it’s Christian foundation by insisting that any reference to a religious framework is to violate the separation of church and state is revealed as a sinister absurdity once it becomes apparent that the atheist’s perspective on the human experience is just as much of a “religion” as much as Christianity and in that regard they are the very thing they claim to despise.
Yet, hypocrisy is only recognized as such when there’s a concrete Truth in place to flag when a person is being hypocritical. But that’s not something that concerns a Liberal because…
…there is no Referee.
Truly Thankful…
The Act of Uniformity in 1662 insisted that all public prayers be restricted to what was documented in the Common Book of Prayer. In other words, rather than praying in a way that reflected your personal regard and need for God, you were now simply reciting a scripted statement crafted according to a pattern sanctioned by the state.1
Sacraments were more than just ceremonies, the way we might take communion. The exercise itself was considered to be capable of “saving” those who participated.2
In addition, it mandated that all those who served in church leadership positions be ordained according to an Episcopal format rather than the qualifications documented in the Bible that emphasized a commitment to Christ more so than a commitment to the monarchy.3
This resulted in something called the “Great Ejection” where over 2,000 ministers were expelled from the Church of England because they refused to commit to what they perceived to be a state sanctioned corruption of Scripture.
Back then, the church was the government and the government was the church. You didn’t dispute matters of doctrine without simultaneously questioning the authority of the king. “Religious Persecution” was much more than just a heated debate. It often translated to imprisonment, torture, and even death.4
It was during this time that you had a number of people who believed the Church of England needed to be “purified” and they became known as the “Puritans.”
Varying levels of “purity” were insisted upon. Those that were determined to separate completely from the Church of England relocated to Holland and from there sailed to what we know today as Massachusetts.
Without an understanding of what “religious persecution” really entailed and an appreciation for the sacrifices and the hardships the Pilgrims endured, it’s easy to gloss over the significance of Thanksgiving.
The Pilgrims left Holland in September of 1620 with 102 passengers. They arrived in Plymouth Harbor in December of that same year. During the first two months, while houses were being built, as many as two to three people died every day. Only 52 people survived the first year in Plymouth.5
It was in the Fall of 1621 that the Pilgrims celebrated their first harvest. That was the celebration that would later be the basis for the holiday we celebrate as Thanksgiving. They had forfeited all that was familiar and reliable and exchanged it for an environment that was oftentimes lethal. But with the help of the God they were determined to serve and worship according to the Word of God and not an act of Parliament, they had endured and they were able to establish a pattern and a premise that would go on to result in the Declaration of Independence and the United States of America.
In 1789, Congress recommended to President Washington to establish a national day of public thanksgiving and prayer. This wasn’t new territory. Congress had recommended a National Day of Prayer and Fasting on sixteen different occasions during the war for Independence. But this was different in that it was not so much an appeal for help as much as it was a word of thanks.
By this point, the Revolutionary War had been won and the Constitution had been ratified (June 21, 1788). There was a lot to be thankful for and it wasn’t just a generic feeling of gratitude for a collection of favorable circumstances. It was an intentional acknowledgement of the One Who protects and provides a resolution to tyranny and persecution and, ultimately the problem of our national and individual sins.
This is our heritage and this is the context of Thanksgiving. Let us be truly thankful…
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
George Washington6
- “Does God Hear Scripted Prayers”, Greg Salazar, “Desiring God”, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-hear-scripted-prayers, accessed November 17, 2024
- “What’s the Difference Between Ordinances and Sacraments”, GotQuestions.org, https://www.gotquestions.org/ordinances-sacraments.html, accessed November 17, 2024
- “Christian liberty: the Puritans in Britain and America”, “Christian History Institute”, https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/christian-liberty-puritans-in-britain-and-america, accessed November 17, 2024
- “Marian Persecutions”, https://samplecontents.library.ph/wikipedia/wp/m/Marian_persecutions.htm, accessed November 17, 2024
- “Who Were the Pilgrims”, “Plimoth / Patuxet Museums”, https://plimoth.org/for-students/homework-help/who-were-the-pilgrims”, accessed November 17, 2024
- “Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789”, “Founders Online”, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091, accessed November 17, 2024
My Best Man
My Best Man
When it came time to select the “best man” for my marriage ceremony, the choice was an obvious one. I don’t know when I had determined to ask my dad, but in the printed wedding program I offered a short explanation by saying he was the “best man that I knew.” He loved his Heavenly Father and he taught his kids to do the same. He set the tone for a great home life and he taught me more than what I can begin to document in the space of a mere “post.” The bottom line: I loved and respected my father more than I can begin to express. Anytime I encounter a person who has lost their father, I tell them the story you’re about to read. This captures a portion of what made my dad so special. It was the wisdom he taught coupled with the example he set that made him “my best man.”
Honorable Discharge
It was the first part of November in 1990. I had recently been discharged from the USMC with close to a decade’s worth of service. I had spent the more than half of that time going to night school anticipating the day where I would be a civilian once again and needing a marketable skill in order to make a living. Working for the government has its perks, one of which being a consistent income and launching into the civilian work force was more than a little daunting when you have no job and no real idea of what to expect. What made my dynamic even more subjective is that while I had a degree, I had determined to try and make my living as a musician. On the day of my discharge ceremony, my father was present, having made the trip from upstate New York. After the awards were distributed and hands were shook, Dad and I loaded my stuff into my car and made the trek from Virginia to Nashville, Tennessee.
Nashville Bound
We drove to my cousin’s house and decided that I would set up shop there for the time being. Sharon’s home was in need of some minor repairs and Dad, being the consummate handy man, volunteered to get those things done while I settled in. At one point, he needed to head to Home Depot to get some materials and I accompanied him with the idea that we would load up what we purchased and I would head back to the house to finish the work he had started. Dad, on the other hand, would get in his car and start the 10 hour drive back to Hilton, New York. As we finished loading up my car with what we had just bought, Dad and I got ready to say “good bye.” I mentioned to him that this was “it” and he looked at me asked what I meant by that. I told him that front this point on, once he was on his way back home, my “journey” was officially beginning. Financial security, succeeding as a musician, establishing a community of friends – all of these things were unknowns and I confessed to him that I was a little intimidated. I don’t know what I expected to hear from him – perhaps some kind of pep talk with phrases like “You can do it” or “You’re ready.” Instead he just looked at me and said “That’s why I raised you.”
That’s Why I Raised You
That may not resonate with you like it did me. But what I heard him say with that four word response was that he had prepared me in the way he had brought me up and this wasn’t the time to feel either overly anxious or melancholy. Rather, it was the time to get busy and put into action the values and the work ethic he had taught me. Frankly, I’m not sure if he could’ve said anything more encouraging. This wasn’t the time to be dwelling on the “what if’s” or the “I’d rather’s.” Instead, I was now mentally rolling up my sleeves with a resolve to move forward. Several years later, that conversation would come back to me as I was wiping the the tears from my face at my father’s Memorial Service. He was sixty years old. After a year in the hospital, waiting for a new heart and then battling the difficulties that sometimes accompany a heart transplant, his body had given out and we were now remembering the life of David Gust. My grief was what you expect as far as a son trying to emotionally process the loss of his father. While some can spend a long time recovering from the death of a parent, I was able to better process things because of the memory of a conversation we had in the Home Depot parking lot where he said, “That’s why I raised you.”
A Legacy of My Own
In my mind, I heard my dad say that to me once more as I was contemplating how I would never see him again this side of Heaven. This time, however, it wasn’t so much about pursuing my dreams as much as it was taking the baton he was now handing to me and honoring his legacy by being the “best man” that I could be as a husband and as a father. I still miss my dad. There’s times I wish I could talk to him and get his perspective on different things. I can imagine him laughing at my jokes, celebrating my triumphs and breathing into me the kind of encouragement that’s required when you’re headed in the wrong direction. But anytime I teeter on the threshold of something resembling an overly emotional disposition as I long for my father’s presence, I can hear him say “That’s why I raised you,” and I’m back at it – determined to be the man he raised me to be and inspired by the thought of seeing him again and being able to honor him with a legacy of my own.
Love you, Dad!
How Did This Happen?
I’m writing this believing that some will have a hard time understanding how Trump won the election…
You’re scratching your head, wondering how Trump was able to win the election given his felonies, his lack of morality, and all his obvious flaws.
There are people out there that have likened him to Hitler, his supporters have been branded as Nazi’s. The MAGA movement is racist, ignorant, rebellious, vulgar, cruel, hateful…
So, how did this happen?
To understand the outcome of the election, you have to be able to pass a simple vocabulary test. To prepare, let’s walk through a couple of terms…
Rule of Law – the best way to process this is to imagine a corrupt lawyer. It’s not about what’s right or fair, it’s what can be manipulated into something that has the appearance of “justice.”
Threat to Democracy – it is a “threat,” but not to Democracy in the context of a representative government. Rather, it’s a threat to those who occupy a position of authority who are determined to serve themselves as opposed to serving others.
Division – Liberals can’t “disagree” intelligently because their ideas don’t work. So, they position themselves as victims of an intolerant society and in so doing can insulate themselves from any real evaluation. Reason being is that you can’t criticize someone who’s in pain without immediately being labeled “cruel and hateful.” This is how they’re able to push their agenda without it having any real practical or logical merit.
With that as their backdrop, any kind of resistance can be labeled as something sinister and even immoral. “Division” is a part of that strategy in that it categorizes anyone who would point out the nonsensical aspects of their platform as being “divisive.”
Felony – this depends on the person being charged. If it’s a Democrat, a felony is the legal term used by those who are engaged in a witch hunt because a Democrat is never guilty as much as they’re just being harassed.
If it’s a Republican, they don’t even have to be guilty, the crime doesn’t have to be specified and the jury doesn’t need to be unanimous. It’s a word that’s been emptied of all its legitimacy in order to use it as a label to undermine the integrity of whoever is speaking so whatever they’re saying is dismissed as flawed because of it coming from a supposedly criminal perspective.
Constitutional – it depends on the context. On one hand, it’s a legal outcome that is in line with a Liberal’s preferences. Otherwise, it’s a flawed ruling based on an antiquated standard authored by a collection of slave owners.
Insurrection – an appropriate response to a questionable decision infiltrated by any one of a number of FBI informants and corrupted law enforcement officials that intentionally instigate and encourage unlawful behavior. The result being a scripted collection of snapshots and sound bites that can be used to characterize the entire effort as criminal.
Truth – irrelevant term used by an individual who wants to infringe on the right of another to think for themselves. It’s the self-absorbed idea that there is an Absolute that can be used as a benchmark to gauge the accuracy and / or the morality of a particular subject.
This is why when you try to point out the fallacies of a Liberal’s argument by citing evidence or common sense, they will simply change the definition of what constitutes evidence or bend the rules of logical thinking because “truth” doesn’t exist as a bottom line that persists independently of a person’s feelings. A Liberal maintains themselves as their own absolute so, at any given moment, they can create an entirely new system of morals and standards to match their preferred assessment of the situation so, while they may be “different” or “damaged” or unfairly dismissed, they’re never wrong.
Now, with those definitions, we can proceed with an answer to your question, as far as how Donald Trump won the election…
Donald Trump’s victory was not the result of a sinister plot or an uneducated group of voters. It was because enough people were able to see through the “vocabulary” of a political philosophy that translates to policies that, more often than not, make a bad situation worse.
Thank You, President Trump
Much of this is a reprint of an article written by Howie Carr and featured in the Boston Herald. I added some things of my own at the bottom of the list.
Christ said you will know a tree by its fruit. Whether it’s Trump or someone who thinks like him, I look forward to an administration that has this kind of record…
- Thank you for the tax cuts for the middle class.
- Thank you for destroying genocidal ISIS, which your predecessor called “the junior varsity.”
- Thanks for shutting off the endless flow of illegal immigrants at the southern border, and the unending supply of MS-13 gangbangers, among other criminals, as well as the welfare-dependent illiterate indigents who were so destabilizing American society before you became president.
- Thank you for calling out the endless hypocrisy of the media — what you so aptly described as “Very Fake News.”
- Thank you for promoting economic policies that led to the lowest unemployment rates ever for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and women, among others.
- Thank you for doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than all of your predecessors combined.
- Thank you for calling out and exposing the feckless RINOs of your own party like Willard Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Kelly Ayotte, et al.
- Thanks for finally standing up to Red China and its predatory trade practices.
- Thanks for calling out Fox News Channel for its duplicitous descent into terminal wokeness. T
- Thank you for Operation Warp Speed, an amazing achievement for which you will never receive the appropriate credit.
- Thanks for pardoning all the persecuted victims of the Russian collusion hoax, among them Gen. Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.
- Thank you for eliminating Obamacare’s “individual mandate,” which fined individuals for not buying health insurance they didn’t want or couldn’t afford.
- Thank you for taking more questions from (almost always hostile) reporters than all of the last three or four presidents combined.
- Thanks for getting the U.S. out of such foreign policy disasters as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as ending the fiasco for American workers that was NAFTA.
- Thanks for such a booming economy that seven million people got off the food-stamp rolls.
- Thanks for all those tweets that drove the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) crazy.
- Thank you for not turning the IRS into an instrument of persecution against your political foes, the way your predecessor did.
- Thanks for not surveilling reporters a la the Obama administration.
- Thanks for ending state oppression against people of faith like the Little Sisters of the Poor.
- Thank you for trying to defund “sanctuary cities” where illegals run amok.
- Thanks for the three new justices on the Supreme Court — think how much worse Hillary’s picks would have been, and maybe someday they’ll grow the spines they so obviously lacked last month in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
- Thank you for defanging North Korea and Little Rocket Man.
- Thanks for opening up more of our North Atlantic waters for New England commercial fishermen and lobstermen.
- Thanks for defending both the First and Second Amendments, and for railing against Section 230, which the billionaire fascists of Silicon Valley are abusing to shut down free speech.
- Thank you for appointing U.S. attorneys who actually wanted to put real criminals in prison, without fear or favor.
- Thank you for the travel ban, which has largely halted the flow of terrorists like the Tsarnaevs, who had been welcomed into the U.S. and put on welfare by previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.
- Thanks for the balance in my 401(k).
- Thanks for the lowest gasoline prices in decades.
- Thanks for the largest number of Americans with gainful employment since the government started keeping records.
- Thank you for ordering the elimination of two of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on earth, al-Baghdadi and Gen. Soleimani.
- Thank you for being bold enough to acknowledge Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
- Thank you for enacting legislation that prevented violations of religious freedom in the context of Heath Care.
- Thank you for eliminating support of global abortion funding (known as the Mexico City Policy).
Thank you, Mr President.
