I was quite young on September 11, 2001. I know from my mother that we sat and watched the television in shock along with the rest of the world. Remembering those who lost their lives, and those who willingly gave them 16 years ago, is very sobering. I think of the men and women who were at work in the towers and at the Pentagon, the firefighters, policemen, boat and ferry drivers, those on Flight 93, and others who became heroes that day.
Each time I reflect on 9/11 I become saddened, but also proud. I am proud to be a citizen of a county where we band together in turmoil. We care for one another and put the needs of others before our own. That is the America that I know and love. It shone beautifully despite the destruction and animosity shown us that day. There was bravery and honor shown by hundreds. I hear all of these things talked about often in regard to 9/11, as they should be. But now, as I think about the attacks, another perspective comes to mind.
I am sure we have all asked how people could fly planes into buildings, taking their own lives and those of thousands of innocents. I sit in utter disbelief of the reality of such evil. While studying history, there were many times I sat in amazement of the depravity of humanity. I don’t believe I will ever find the answer to many of my questions. However, I came to the realization that I was born with the exact same sinful nature as all the people I read about. This realization brought me to my knees.
As humans, we are born into a state of depravity we ourselves cannot comprehend. Yet there is salvation; there is hope. God loves us despite our depravity. That fact is astounding to me. What is often surprising is the fact that there is still good in this world. These realizations make me want to praise the Lord for who He is and the vast nature of His love. When I look at 9/11 through this lens, I see more than I ever did before.
There is no excuse for the evil that was displayed that day. We are engaged in a fight with this evil, but it is important to remember that we also fight this fight on a spiritual level, not a just physical one. We fight for the reconciling of hearts to Christ. Because of the depravity of our human nature, salvation is the only real solution to the evil in the world. September 11 was a very sad and devastating time in our history, but it is also a call to share the gospel.
September 11, 2001 should never be forgotten, I pray it never will be. However, we must do more than simply remember. America today needs people willing to follow the example of the heroes who arose that day. We need to unite as a nation, but we also need to unite under God. We must come together and put the needs of others before our own, as many did on that fateful day, and let beauty shine amid the dark times and good times.
We do not have to wait for disaster to strike to seek the Lord. Let us stand for our beliefs at all times. “…[I]n your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…” (1 Peter 3:15). May we always remember that we do not place our hope in the circumstances around us, but in our Lord Jesus.
We wanted to share the following information with you from our friends at Cornerstone Action, an allied field partner, known as a Family Policy Council, (FPC) which accomplishes at the state level what FRC Action does at the national level. To find out your local FPC, visit our map for more details!
If you are a New Hampshire resident or know someone who is, we encourage you to join Cornerstone Action in making your voice heard on Thursday, August 24, as the New Hampshire Department of Justice will hold a hearing on how their Medicaid tax dollars could be spent on “sex change” surgeries! Let’s continue to fight at every level of government their overreach and social experimentation.
Will Your Tax Dollars Pay For “Sex Change” Surgery? The N.H. Department of Health and Human Services Wants to Hear From You!
A concerned parent whose family is served by the N.H. Healthy Families program has come forward with a July 31 letter from the program, which was sent separately to his children, ages 11 and 17. The letter was titled “Changes to Your Health Insurance Plan.” Among the changes, which the letter states were effective July 1, is this: “We will not limit or exclude health services related to gender transition.”
Why are children being told that the change is effective July 1, when a hearing on the rule change isn’t until August 24?
Who: N.H. Department of Health and Human Services
What: The DHHS will hold a hearing on the proposed rule change
When: Thursday, August 24, 2017, 11:00 a.m.
Where: DHHS Brown Building Auditorium, 129 Pleasant Street,Concord, NH. (Note that this is NOT near the State House.)
Written testimony will be accepted by DHHS via email, fax, or postal mail until August 31. Email email@example.com, fax to 603-271-5590, or send written testimony to DHHS Administrative Rules Unit, 129 Pleasant St., Concord NH 03301.
If Cornerstone learns of any schedule change, it will be noted on their web site. (nhcornerstone.org) Thank you for standing with us and Cornerstone Action to protect and defend Faith, Family, and Freedom!
Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) launched a video ad campaign across Texas that exposes the hypocrisy of corporations that are opposing the special session legislation that protects the privacy and safety of women and children.
FRC Action’s social media ad campaign calls on House Speaker Joe Straus, Rep. Byron Cook and other Texas State Representatives (Dennis Bonnen, Charlie Geren, Ken King, John Kuempel, and Chris Paddie) to listen to their constituents and support the Texas privacy legislation instead of listening to corporations such as American Airlines and Google which advocate for bathroom policies that they will not adopt in their own facilities. The hypocrisy begs the question, “Why is big business getting involved in the state government?”
Last week, the Texas State Senate passed the bill which prevents public schools and government buildings from adopting policies that would open women’s showers, bathrooms, and changing facilities to men and visa-versa. It also prevents political subdivisions from forcing businesses and organizations, including contractors, to open their showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms to people of the opposite sex. It leaves private entities free to determine their own policies regarding the use of shared bathrooms and showers.
Here is the transcript of the “Big Business Hypocrisy” Ad:
They say ‘Don’t mess with Texas,’ right?
So, why is big business getting involved in the state government?
Well, you probably know the Trump administration left the states the power to determine the shower, locker room, and restroom policies of schools.
So, during the regular session, the Texas Senate passed the Privacy Act, which would have protected the privacy and safety of women and children.
The act is simple.
It would have required schools and state buildings to have policies that require people to use the facility that corresponds to their biological sex and to make accommodations for those who identify as transgender. It would have left businesses free to adopt whatever policy they want.
So, what’s the big deal?
Well, big business is demanding Texas expose women and children to policies that could endanger them in the most private of places… by allowing men into women’s restrooms and locker rooms.
But those same businesses like Hilton, Marriott, La Quinta, American Airlines, Google, and others refuse to enact the same unsafe policies in their own facilities… even though they are free to do it.
Call House Speaker Joe Straus. Urge him to stop blocking a strong shower, locker room, and bathroom privacy bill from getting a House vote.
Will Speaker Straus side with the Obama administration’s radical agenda, or listen to the overwhelming number of Texans who support the commonsense Texas Privacy Act?
Click your representative’s name below to watch the ad and tell him to support the Texas Privacy Act:
Another undercover video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has been released, showing a Planned Parenthood vice president explaining how a shady “checkbox” system when filling out abortion documentation allows them to stay in compliance with the law as they carry out brutal abortion practices.
In the video, Dr. Suzie Prabhakaran, Planned Parenthood’s Vice President of Medical Affairs, discusses with CMP investigators posing as fetal tissue buyers the loophole they use in documenting their procedures:
“So some people train to just document that like, you know, to comply with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, you basically have to say, ‘I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure,’” Prabhakaran explained. “So every time you do a procedure, that’s how you document. So, like, there’s like a checkbox… So it would be before the procedure, you do your evaluation, you write, ‘I intend to utilize dismemberment techniques for this procedure.’”
So as long the abortionist checks off that they “intend” to use dismemberment techniques, which is just as horrific, they do as they please in harvesting off “intact specimens” for profit.
In the video, Dr. Prabhakaran goes on to say this: “The Federal [Partial-Birth] Abortion Ban is a law, and laws are up to interpretation. So there are some people who interpret it as its intent. So if I say on Day 1 I do not intend to do this, what ultimately happens doesn’t matter.”
Let’s not forget that within the 44 undercover, un-doctored videos CMP has released over the last two years, we’ve seen Planned Parenthood executives barter over the price of human aborted body parts while eating their lunch, brag about how much profit they could get in order to buy themselves a Lamborghini, discuss how they manipulate abortion methods to get “intact heads,” agree to payments and making contract deals for the purchase of aborted baby parts, explain how clinics can generate income from body parts exchanges, and talk about how to monitor the comfortability of clinic staff in order to continue their practices discreetly.
Yet, CMP investigative lead David Daleiden is the one who is being criminally prosecuted, and this is not by accident. California’s liberal Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, who received thousands of dollars in contributions from Planned Parenthood during his congressional campaigns, filed fifteen bogus felony charges against Daleiden, an action even the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board called a “disturbing overreach.” Though 14 of the 15 charges were dismissed, Becerra has threatened to have them reinstated. The judge in the case, William H. Orrick, also has close ties with Planned Parenthood, having served as an active board member of the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC) in San Francisco, which has had a Planned Parenthood facility on its site for a number of years. GSFRC has even gone so far as to describe its relationship with Planned Parenthood as a “key partnership.”
Daleiden has an uphill climb in his legal battle against Attorney General Becerra and Judge Orrick. Despite the fact that the Center for Medical Progress uses the same legal undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for many years, bias toward the abortion industry could prevent Daleiden from receiving a fair trial.
The state of California has previously refused to press charges in similar circumstances where nearly identical techniques were used. First, when NBC’s Dateline was sued in California (in Wilkins v. NBC) when it taped a lunch meeting with a company’s salesperson, the court ruled in favor of NBC’s undercover journalists, using the same law that is now being used against Daleiden. Second, when two animal welfare groups, Mercy for Animals and Compassion Over Killing, went undercover to capture footage of animal abuse in California using the same techniques as Daleiden, the attorney general’s office did not file charges. Instead, the state chose to investigate the farms that were at the center of the groups’ reporting. However, on the issue of abortion, state officials refuse to investigate the abhorrent practices of the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. Instead, state officials are waging a war against the messenger and not the perpetrators.
By attacking a citizen journalist for his undercover work, they are also trampling on Daleiden’s First Amendment rights. He has a constitutional right to share his work with the public, just as the public has the right to know about Planned Parenthood’s outrageous actions.
“The Department of Justice should open an immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood’s late-term abortion practices, and the U.S. Congress must stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize Planned Parenthood’s brutal abortion empire,” said Daleiden.
Here’s the bottom line: Liberal politicians have targeted Daleiden and CMP for leading the charge in exposing the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood’s grisly business, and they’ve stacked the deck against him. David is counting on us to let our voices be heard and to stand with him. Please sign this petition in his support:
“I’m standing with David and agree that Congress should act now to defund Planned Parenthood and that in order for David to have a fair trial, Judge Orrick must recuse himself due to his ties to Planned Parenthood which unfairly bias his judgment in this case.”
In a free country such as ours, it’s easy to forget that slavery still exists: human beings are being trafficked and sold for sex against their will. Human trafficking is a horrifying scourge that continues to haunt America, particularly through the proliferation of illegal online transactions between traffickers and buyers.
In this timely policy lecture, Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) discusses congressional anti-human trafficking initiatives and how the conservative community can best be engaged in combatting this horrific crime. Congresswoman Wagner, who introduced the highly anticipated Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 in April, focuses on online sex trafficking via Backpage.com and other websites, the need to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and how to confront the demand for sex trafficking in American culture.
David Daleiden led the project that brought to light the footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the selling of baby body parts in 2015. Since then, Daleiden has started the #PPSellsBabyParts campaign on Twitter and has continued to be a strong activist on behalf of the most vulnerable. However, the National Abortion Federation (NAF) has sued Daleiden by claiming that the videos were illegally obtained and that their distribution poses a possible threat to the lives of abortionists across the country. U.S. District Judge William Orrick has ruled that David must take his video content off the web. David complied but his attorney placed the videos on his own website to keep them public. Judge Orrick reacted by saying that David was in contempt of the court. He also slapped him with additional fines, upward of $150,000.
David’s defense team has called for Judge Orrick to recuse himself as the sitting judge of the case because of his personal bias toward and support of Planned Parenthood. As evidence of Judge Orrick’s bias, David’s team has cited statements made on May 25th that imply that he believed David meant to cause personal harm to abortionists by releasing the videos. They also cited the fact that Judge Orrick has worked for over 20 years with a Planned Parenthood affiliate, the Good Samaritan Resource Center, and donated $5,072 to the resource center in 2006. Additionally, it appears that members of Judge Orrick’s family have publicly supported court rulings against David on social media.
Those who support the pro-life cause and the work that David undertook to reveal the practice of Planned Parenthood and the NAF in selling baby body parts should join in signing this petition. Judge Orrick’s bias must be reviewed to ensure that Daleiden is given fair treatment before the law and to ensure that justice is served. David is counting on us to make our voices heard and to stand with him. Stand with David Daleiden in his legal battle and also tell Congress to defund Planned Parenthood by signing this petition: Support Daleiden.
In 2008, Barack Obama won the presidency in blowout fashion over Republican candidate John McCain. President Obama won the election by roughly 9.5 million votes, and won the electoral college by 192 votes. In addition to controlling the White House, the Democratic Party held 859 more state legislative seats than Republicans and had overwhelming majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Things could not have been going better for the Democrats.
In the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, there were a lot of controversial legislation and actions taken by the Obama administration, but by far the most controversial legislation passed was the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.” Polling showed that this was very unpopular among American voters. Their frustration came to fruition over the next election cycle. By the end of the 2010 mid-term elections, Democrats had lost 726 state legislative seats, six governorships, 63 seats in the House of Representatives, and six Senate seats.
The downward trend for the Democrats was put on hold for the time being in the 2012 election. Barack Obama won the presidency by 5 million votes and by 126 in the electoral college. While the Democrats gained back seats in both the Senate and the House, they did not regain their majority in the House. The Democrats also gained a few state legislative seats. So while Democrats had gains, the GOP still had the majority of state legislatures, governorships, and had a majority in the House.
This is where the argument is made that the people of America, while voting for Obama the man, still collectively rejected his policies. There were six states that Obama won that had a Republican controlled state senate, with another having a split senate. In addition, there were seven states that went for Obama but had a Republican controlled state house. Altogether, there were five states that went for Obama that still had both a state legislature controlled by Republicans and had a Republican governor. There were an additional three states that had a split legislature, two with a Republican governor, that went for Obama. Of those eight states, six (Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) would later go for Trump in the 2016 election.
Where the wheels really came off for the Democratic Party is in the 2014 mid-term elections. After that set of elections, Republicans controlled 33 of 49 state houses and 35 of 49 state senates. Nebraska is not included in those numbers due to having a unicameral state government, which is nonpartisan. Republicans had a total advantage in state legislatures of 956 seats, 31 of 50 governorships, a 59-seat advantage in the U.S. House, and a ten-seat advantage over Democrats in the Senate.
From when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, to when Donald Trump was elected in 2016, the Democratic Party lost a total of 15 state houses chambers, 14 state senate chambers, 960 state legislative seats, 10 governorships, 62 seats in Congress, and 11 seats in the Senate. With these numbers, plus the election of Donald Trump as president, it can only be concluded that while Obama the man was well liked, the policies of Obama were not.
In our first ever FRC Action-hosted policy lecture, we partnered with The Leadership Institute to bring you “The Real Nature of Politics.”
Many committed conservatives tend to believe that being right, in the sense of being correct, is sufficient to win. Unfortunately, political history proves otherwise. If you allow your opposition to organize and communicate better than you do, they will beat you no matter how right you are — and you don’t deserve to win. You owe it to your philosophy to study how to win. You have a moral obligation to learn how to win. In this lecture you will learn the real nature of politics, and study how to win.
The speaker in this presentation, Robert Arnakis, is the Senior Director of Domestic and International Programs for The Leadership Institute, the nation’s premier public policy training organization. Robert oversees divisions which provide political education and training to tens of thousands of activists, elected officials, and political staffers. Robert’s 15 years of grassroots organizing, campaigning, fundraising, and communications experience has established him as one the country’s top political trainers. His background includes serving as campaign staff on presidential, congressional, municipal, and initiative-focused campaigns. Robert’s best campaign memory was assisting U.S. Senator John Thune in defeating Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.
This question is especially relevant today because of two recent events:
First, recent comments made by Senator Bernie Sanders in a Senate Committee Hearing made believers consider whether they still have the right to practice what they believe (watch the video here).
Secondly, the Supreme Court has agreed to review MasterpieceCakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether craftsman and artists still have the right to decline the promotion of a message they disagree with if it violates deeply-held religious beliefs, or if they can be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates his or her faith.
To better understand this question, we should refer to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis added); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment makes it clear that personal faith and the practice of faith are not to be separated by the government.
On June 26, 2017 in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch referred back to the First Amendment, when he stated, “that clause guarantees the free exercise of religion, not just the right to inward belief (or status).” This statement aptly outlines why artists, craftsman, etc. are not only free to believe in their faith but are also free to practice what they believe within their business. This case was a victory for all Americans who try to put their faith and beliefs into action.
In the name of “inclusiveness,” the Left has attempted to coerce individuals of faith to violate their consciences. But polling shows that a majority of Americans support the freedom to believe and live out those beliefs in the public square. The American Founders understood that threats against religious freedom would arise. For this reason, Madison wrote in Federalist 51: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” Madison understood that harmony can only exist in a republic if the beliefs of individuals are protected—whether they’re in the majority or minority. In our country, people of faith have the freedom to believe and to act in accordance with that belief. The Left should take note that the right which protects a Jewish butcher from being compelled to serve pork is the same right that permits Christians to decline to bake a cake for a court-created same-sex marriage. This is not just a Christian issue, this is a question that affects anyone who has a conscience and wants to put their beliefs into practice.
As stated on FreetoBelieve.com, “When Americans believe something, they back it up with their actions (emphasis added). Our core beliefs define who we are, and how we live. The freedom to believe and live according to those beliefs is the foundation for a civil society where people of differing beliefs can live and work together with mutual respect.”
Like other challenges to faith and freedom that America has faced, we are hopeful that this current trend of religious liberty violations be put behind us. However, if freedom is not properly defended in situations such as Senator Sanders’ challenge of Mr. Vought or in MasterpieceCakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the potential to cause devastating consequences for faith-filled Americans is daunting.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer should encourage all lovers of freedom. However, this is just one victory in many cases that the Supreme Court will review. All believers are called to pray for our country and that the Supreme Court will continue to defend the right of all people to put their faith into action.