Nationalization of Federal Elections

Nationalization of Federal Elections

Thomas Allen

Trump and many of his supporters advocate for the nationalization of federal elections. They want to require voters to prove citizenship with governmentally approved identification.  As support for their position, they cite Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, which reads, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Using this clause, they argue that the federal government can establish the qualifications of voters in federal elections. To prevent confusion, most States will adopt the federal standards for State elections.

However, does the Constitution authorize the federal government to set qualifications for voters even in federal elections? The delegation only allows Congress to set the time, places, and manner of holding federal elections. Congress has set the time, and most States elect their State and county officials on that date. It can identify the locations of federal elections. Finally, it can describe the manner of election. That is, Congress can require or prohibit the use of paper ballots, machine-voting, etc., for federal elections. However, this clause does not authorize Congress to establish qualifications for voters.

If Congress could establish voter qualifications, there would have been no need for the Fifteenth Amendment (extended voting to Black males), the Nineteenth Amendment (gave women the vote), the Twenty-fourth Amendment (removed the requirement to pay taxes), and the Twenty-sixth Amendment (lowered the voting age to 18). Instead of going through the arduous process of amending the Constitution, Congress could have merely changed voter qualifications by statute. (Since presidents keep legislating through executive orders, the president could set the qualifications for voters with an executive order.)

Historically, the duty for setting voter qualifications rested with the States. If not, the Constitution would not have needed to be amended to establish national standards for voting qualifications.

The proponents of nationalizing federal elections argue that nationalization is necessary to prevent fraud. It is not. (In “Trump Calls to ‘Nationalize’ Elections. The Constitutional Solution Is Local,” February 5, 2026, Veronika Kyrylenko identifies many steps that States and local governments can take to reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. She also discusses some major flaws in the proposed legislation; one is that it will become part of the federal government’s digital surveillance of Americans. [https://thenewamerican.com/us/trump-calls-to-nationalize-elections-the-constitutional-solution-is-local/?mc_cid=abab48bd20]) They claim that presenting some kind of federally approved identification to vote is necessary to prevent or at least reduce fraud, which is true. However, should the federal government undertake such action? If Trump succeeds in nationalizing federal elections, he will set a dangerous precedent that the Democrats will use to their advantage when they regain control of the federal government. They can amend the law to prohibit voter ID. Moreover, they can require that all federal elections be held by mail-in ballots and that only Democrats can count the ballots. If federal elections are nationalized, all federal elections can become as corrupt and fraudulent as the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia. 

(Personally, I believe that requiring voter identification would reduce corrupt and fraudulent elections. However, the States should impose the requirement rather than the federal government. The more centralized voting becomes, the easier it is to corrupt.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Separation Versus Integration

Separation Versus Integration

Thomas Allen

After reading some of Martin Luther King’s works, I discovered that I, a racist bigot, have a much higher opinion of and more confidence in the American Negro than King did. King believed that Negroes were incapable of raising themselves without altruistic White aid. That is, King believed that Whites were solely responsible for raising Negroes from their unpleasant conditions; Negroes had no responsibility. Whites were to give Negroes everything, and Negroes were to take everything.

Like  Malcolm X and Roy Innis, I believe that Negroes are capable of raising themselves independently of Whites. Unlike King, who was an integrationist, they were separationists. Also, unlike King, who promoted the destruction of Negro culture and even the Negro race, they advocated the preservation and enhancement of Negro culture and the Negro race.

According to King, Negroes were blameless for their condition and, thus, had no responsibility for improving their condition. Whites were solely responsible for improving the conditions of the Negroes. However, under separation, Negroes have the primary responsibility for improving their conditions. Consequently, separation would have taught Negroes responsibility, independence, and self-reliance. It would have freed them from the slave mentality. Ironically, Jim Crow was teaching these lessons to Negroes and freeing them from the slave mentality until the civil rights movement killed Jim Crow. Unfortunately, under integration, most Negroes have failed to learn responsibility, independence, and self-reliance, and thus, the slave mentality continues to possess them.

If the country had followed the separationist road instead of the integrationist road, race relations would be much better than they are today. Now, race relations are so great that they are tearing the country apart.

Under separation, Negroes would know that what they have, they earned by their own efforts. Under integration, Whites have given Negroes much of what they have today. Consequently, Negroes do not know whether they earned what they have or whether they have been given what they have. Knowing that they earned what they have would give them more self-respect and the respect of others.

Moreover, under separation, the country would not have wasted trillions of dollars on the War on Poverty. (According to one study, the United States have spent more money on the War on Poverty than all other wars combined.)

Further, under separation, diversity, inclusion, and equity (equality of outcome and discrimination against Whites) would not have torn the country apart as they are doing today. (Ironically, inclusion destroys diversity. To be preserved, diversity requires segregation and separation. Inclusion requires integration and amalgamation.)

Another result of separation is that the White race would not be filled with self-hatred and the uncontrollable urge to genocide itself. Whites would not have opened the borders to third-world colonists, who are mostly Turanians from Asia and Latin America (Indians and mestizos) and Melanochroi from India, Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa. Not only are these colonists destroying Whites, but they are also destroying Negroes.

Under integration, most Whites have become racial nihilists and practice the new morality of sacrificing the White race on the altar of humanity. Under separation, most Whites would have continued to practice the old morality of preserving, protecting, and promoting their race and would have become racial preservationists. 

Under integration, Negroes have become Black supremacists and practice the old morality. However, under separation, Negroes would have become racial preservationists while practicing the old morality.

Life in America under separation would not be a utopia. However, it would not be the dystopia that it has become under integration. Most likely, Negroes would have advanced further under separation than they have under integration. Under separation, their advancement would not have required bringing down the White race as has happened under integration. Moreover, wokeism would never have been born, and queerdom would have remained in the shadows.

Separation would have led to a society similar to that envisioned by Booker T. Washington. The races would be separated socially; little social interaction would occur between them. However, economically, the races would be interconnected; they would interact with each other economically.

Separation accords with God’s law, while integration rebels against God’s law.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Loofs on the Christology Views of the New Testament

Loofs on the Christology Views 

of the New Testament

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 177-184, Friedrich Loofs presents and discusses five points that show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the Christological views of the New Testament follows.

[1] It is a view of vital importance to orthodox Christology that the historical Jesus is the preexistent Son of God. Do we find anything about this in the New Testament? Certainly many New Testament passages assert the pre-existence of Christ; that is, they assert or assume that Jesus did not begin to exist when his earthly life began. “O Father,” Jesus says in the high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John, “glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) But where in the New Testament is this prehistoric, yea, this antemundane, Christ called the “Son of God”? Where are we told that he is as such begotten of the Father before the world? In the prologue of the Gospel of John, the pre-existent Christ is not called the “Son” but the “word,” and we are told that “this was in the beginning.” (John 1:1, 2.) Only one passage in the Pauline epistles might be suspected of referring to an antemundane birth of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul calls Christ “the first-born of every creature.” But here the Greek equivalent for first-born only means that he was before every creature and above all creatures. Then the only remaining support of the later doctrine is Jesus’ title “Son of God,” which, as we all know, occurs very often in the New Testament. But in the New Testament it is applied to the historical Jesus, either with reference to his birth out of the Spirit of God, (Luke 1:35.) or because the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, (Mark 4:11.) or without reference to a date of its entrance because the Spirit of God lived in him, (Rom. 1:3.) or because Jesus was the Messiah, (Matt. 16:16.) or because he stood in a unique position of love toward God. (Matt. 11:27.) The term, “the only begotten Son,” too, only signifies what was mentioned last. For the Greek equivalent for “only begotten” does not mean anything else than unique or peerless. And it was not modern exegesis that first interpreted the term “Son of God” thus. In the first half of the fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra emphatically pointed out that in the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God only after the incarnation, and not in his pre-existence. And the older apostolic fathers, the so-called first epistle of Clement, dating from about 95 A. D., and the Ignatian letters interpret the term “Son of God” in this manner only.

[2] It is easier to show, secondly, that the idea of the triune God, as dogmatized later, is foreign to the New Testament. We surely find the belief in the New Testament that God was in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit that lives in the single Christians and in the whole community is the spirit of God. That God the Father reveals himself also in the Son and in the Spirit, that is a conviction which is in accordance with the New Testament. But there cannot be the least doubt, nor can we alter the fact, that when  the New Testament speaks of “God,” it is thinking only of the one God whom Jesus called his Father and the Father of the faithful, too. This is shown without the shadow of a doubt by the apostolic greeting: “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.) And the case is not different throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel of John, in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, we even read: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) Also the well-known prayerful wish of the apostle Paul: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all”(II Cor. 13:13.) points in the same direction. For the apostle does not speak here about three persons in the one God, but about the love of the one God, and in addition thereto, or better: in connection with it, of the grace of Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost.

[3] It is easier still to show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views in a third respect. According to the  orthodox Christology, the personal subject, the supreme I, of the historical Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity. Does the fact that Jesus prayed harmonize with this? Does the circumstance that he said to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” (John 20:17.) harmonize with it? We have seen, indeed, that the self-consciousness of Jesus surpassed the measure of a human self-consciousness. But can we deny that in the whole New Testament a human self-consciousness is the frame in which the inner life of Jesus first comes to our notice? His humility, his obedience, his trust in God cannot be interpreted differently. We shall discuss in the last lecture how this view can be reconciled with the fact that the frame of a human self-consciousness proves to be too strait to make the personality of Jesus intelligible. Here it will suffice to have shown that the orthodox Christology which considers a divine person as the personal subject in Christ does not correspond with the New Testament views. 

[4] The fourth point I wish to mention is, that the experiences of Jesus, like his self-consciousness, are at variance with orthodox Christology. Orthodoxy of all ages was worried by the fact that we are told of Jesus, with regard to his youth, that “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Could this be harmonized with the assumption that the real subject of the historical Jesus was the eternal Son of God? Orthodoxy of ancient times considered these two statements as being harmonized by the assertion that the eternal Son of God grew, suffered, and died only according to his human nature. But who will deny that our very self itself is growing during our life? And certainly it sounds very forced to say that the Son of God, who by his own nature could never suffer, suffered nevertheless in his human flesh and in his human soul! Surely such forced constructions are quite foreign to the New Testament.

[5] Fifthly and lastly, I shall have to point out that in the New Testament Jesus, even after his exaltation, appears in such an organic connection with the human race as hardly to agree with orthodox Christology. Especially those very writers of the New Testament who most obviously do not assume that the life of Jesus was a purely human one viz., Paul and John make this very clear. For Paul the risen Lord “is the first-born from the dead,” (Col. 1:18.) “the first-born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29.) The faithful, in Paul’s opinion, are predestinated by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:29 and 8:17.) Very similarly we read in the high-priestly prayer in the Gospel of John: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16.)  and: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; (John 17:24.) “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, . . . that they may be one even as we are one; (John 17:21.) and “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) In Revelation we find the same thoughts. Here the exalted Christ says: “He that overcometh I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev.  3:21) . . .  

These five points show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. And those who are impartial enough to see this are thereby convinced that the old orthodox Christology cannot give us the correct interpretation of the historical person of Jesus.

More religious articles.

Trump’s Pardons

Trump’s Pardons

Thomas Allen

In a letter to the editor, Mr. S, who suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, criticized Trump’s pardons. Like him, I find several of Trump’s pardons questionable. For example, Trump pardoned Larry Hoover, who was serving multiple life sentences for his crimes of leading the Chicago-based drug syndicate operating in at least 35 states, selling more than $100 million of drugs each year in Chicago alone. Also, Trump pardoned former Honduran president Juan Orlando, a drug trafficker, who was sentenced to 45 years for moving hundreds of tons of cocaine from his country into the United States. However, I fervently disagree with Mr. S about Trump pardoning the January 6 protestors.

Trump pardoning these drug kingpins shows that he is not warring against Venezuela because of narcotics. It is about oil, regime change, and imposing American hegemony. (As recent events have shown, narcotics were the excuse; confiscating Venezuelan oil, changing the regime, and making Lindsey Graham, who appears to be Trump's primary foreign affairs advisor, happy were the reasons.) Obviously, he is acting like a neoconservative. Many people voted for him because they thought that he opposed the neoconservative foreign policy, but he fooled them. Like most presidents in the last 100 years, Trump is a lying hypocrite. 

Letter

Mr. S and Democrats who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome distort Trump’s pardoning of 1500 political prisoners, the so-called insurrectionists of January 6, 2020.

The so-called insurrection that occurred on January 6 was the strangest in history. The insurrectionists showed up disorganized and without weapons. Moreover, the palace guards opened the doors and let them in. Some of the guards even escorted some of the insurrectionists around the building. If anyone were convicted of a crime, it should have been the guards.

If our Representatives and Senators thought that a disorganized, unarmed mob was trying to overthrow the federal government, why did they flee? Since they heavily outgunned the insurrectionists, why did they not stand and fight to save the government? Were they cowards? Did they believe that the federal government was not worth defending? Or, did they know that this was no instruction and, therefore, lied about it being one? At least one of these three options must be true. If they are cowards, they should not be in Congress. If they believe that the government is not worth defending, they should not be in Congress. If they have lied, they should not be in Congress. Consequently, none of these Representatives or Senators should be in Congress.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

 Jews’ and Lincoln’s Treatment of Negroes

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Jewish treatment of freed slaves and Lincoln toward Blacks and slaves.

Jewish Treatment of Freed Slaves

In “We Thought They Were White,” Dontell Jackson discusses the prominence of Jews in the slave trade during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He provides some interesting information about Jewish exploitation of Blacks during Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction:

Writing in the journal of his travels throughout the South in the mid 19th century, author Fredrick Law Olmsted noted: “There is a considerable population of foreign origin, generally of the least valuable class; very dirty German Jews, especially, abound, and their characteristic shops (with their characteristic smells, quite as bad as in Cologne) are thickly set in the narrowest and meanest streets, which seem otherwise to be mainly inhabited by negroes. . . . A swarm of Jews has, within the last ten years, settled in every Southern town, many of them men of no character, opening cheap clothing and trinket shops, ruining or driving out of business many of the old retailers, and engaging in an unlawful trade with the simple Negroes, which is found very profitable.” Similarly, Mark Twain commented: “In the U. S. cotton states, after the war, the Jew came down in force, set up shop on the plantation, supplied all the negroes’ wants on credit, and at the end of the season was the proprietor of the negro’s share of the present crop and part of the next one. Before long the whites detested the Jew.”

Civil War Union William Tecumseh Sherman on arriving in the South was astonished by the number of Jewish carpetbaggers and scalawags that he encountered operating in the Confederate states, saying: “I found so many Jews & speculators here trading in cotton and secessionists had become open in refusing anything but gold that I have found myself bound to stop it.” General Ulysses Grant wrote to the Assistant Adjutant General of the US Army on December 17, 1862, : “I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by the Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department. But they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy at an agreed rate, paying gold.”

Lincoln on Blacks and Slaves

Abraham Lincoln is the most idolized President of the United States. Although he never freed any slaves and did not want to live among freed Blacks, he is known as the Great Emancipator and the forefather of racial equality. Furthermore, he is praised for saving the Union, although he destroyed the Union organized under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country and converted it into a consolidated empire primarily for the benefit of big business and big finance.

In “The Consolidation of State Power Via Reconstruction, 1865–1890,” Thomas J. DiLorenzo provides some interesting yet little-known information about Abraham Lincoln.

– Lincoln was a White supremacist and believed that the races should be segregated.

– As a supporter of African colonization, he wanted to repatriate freed slaves to Africa or send them to another country; they should not be allowed to remain in the United States as social or political equals of Whites. They certainly should not be allowed to settle in the territories because they were reserved for Whites.

– He married into a slave-owning family, and slave labor from the family’s plantation subsidized him and his wife.

– Lincoln supported the Illinois “Black Codes,” which restricted the trades and occupations of Blacks. (During Reconstruction, the federal government prevented Southern States from adopting such codes.)

– Moreover, he ordered Union officers to return runaway slaves to their owners and required his cabinet to sign a pledge to support the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution.

– When he was in the Illinois Legislature, he supported amending the Illinois Constitution to forbid the immigration of Blacks into the state. Also, when he was in the Illinois Legislature, he voted to deny blacks the privilege to vote. Further, he opposed Negro citizenship and opposed allowing them to serve as jurors or hold public office. Moreover, he favored taxing Blacks to help pay for schools for White children.

– As an Illinois lawyer, Lincoln defended slave owners, but he never defended a fugitive slave.

To DiLorenzo’s list, Clyde Wilson, in “Getting Right With Abe,” adds that instead of emancipating the slaves that his wife inherited, he sold them. Additionally, in “Erasing Black Confederates,” Wanjiru Njoya notes that Lincoln personally supported an irrevocable constitutional amendment, commonly called the Corwin Amendment, that protected slavery forever.

(For more on Lincoln’s attitude toward Blacks, see “Lincoln on the Negro Race” and “Some Nineteenth Century Thought on the Negro” by Thomas Allen.)

With their rapine, Jews, Yankees, and Republicans impoverished the South so severely that more than a century elapsed before Southerners and Southern Blacks recovered from the poverty caused by Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction. 

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Trump and Evangelicals

Trump and Evangelicals

Thomas Allen

Below is a letter to the editor that I wrote in response to another published letter on Trump and evangelicals. This person, whom I refer to as Mr. S, has written several letters criticizing Trump and evangelicals. Mr. S suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Also, he loathes evangelicals as much as he loathes Trump — perhaps, even more.  Some of my comments in brackets provide additional context for my response.

The Letter

Mr. S’s letter displays more prejudice toward evangelicals than evangelicals show toward brown people. Moreover, his letter speaks of love, yet it shows more hatred toward evangelicals and Trump than either shows toward brown people and foreigners.

If Trump ceases being a Zionist, he will lose the support of most evangelicals. Supporting Israel and Zionism is of the utmost importance to them. [Mr. S is convinced that both Trump and evangelicals hate brown people, and the primary reason that evangelicals support Trump is because he hates brown people. Much of his lengthy letter is filled with derogatory remarks about evangelicals.]

Unlike the justice that Biden appointed to the Supreme Court, who does not know the difference between a man and a woman, at least Trump’s appointments do. [Mr. S faults Trump’s Supreme Court appointments.]

Moreover, Obama and Biden were much more fascistic than Trump has been. [Like all good Democrats and left-wingers, Mr. S declares Trump to be a fascist. I would be surprised if he really knew what a fascist is.]

If Trump is trying to eliminate political opposition, he is just following Biden and other Democratic leaders. They came close to succeeding. By calling for the arrest of Democrats, Trump is just following Biden and the Democrats. They arrested and tried Trump and imprisoned many of his supporters. Moreover, Biden and the Democrats crushed the freedom of speech of their opposition.

All these Democrats yapping about Trump deporting illegals never remonstrated when Clinton and Obama were deporting illegals. Apparently, they do not object to deporting illegals; they only object to who is doing it.

When it comes to following the Constitution, Trump is in good company. No president since Coolidge has even attempted to follow the Constitution. Based on their actions, most have less understanding of the Constitution than the typical kindergartner. [Mr. S criticizes Trump for failing to follow the Constitution; however, I have never seen him criticize a Democrat for failing to follow it.]

All the Constitutional safeguards that Mr. S refers to ceased to exist with the Lincoln administration. As for the rule of law, it means no resistance to the Democratic Party's agenda under Obama, Biden, and whoever is the next Democratic president. The rule of law is whatever their arbitrary whim dictates. [Mr. S accuses Trump of abandoning the rule of law.]

In short, almost everything that Trump has done since he has been in office, Democrats have done before.

Nearly all of the founding fathers despised democracy and believed that it was one of the worst forms of government. H.L. Mencken wrote, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.