The Latest

So What’s the Big Deal About the Johnson Amendment?

by FRC Action

May 11, 2017

As you know, President Trump recently issued an executive order on religious freedom and has talked a great deal about the need to repeal the Johnson Amendment. Most are wondering what would need to happen legislatively to repeal the Johnson Amendment and restore religious freedom and free speech to churches and nonprofit organizations.

FRC hosted a Family Policy Lecture on the Free Speech Fairness Act with Congressman Jody Hice (R-Ga.) a week ago. In case you missed it, you can view the lecture here.

So what does this legislation do?

Americans should not have to give up their right to free speech when they work for a church or a nonprofit. Yet, that is the legal state of affairs under the “Johnson Amendment.” The Free Speech Fairness Act is a bill that restores free speech and religious liberty to churches and other nonprofits so that they are free to address all issues – even political candidates and causes. This bill is needed because America was built on the principle that free speech and the free exercise of religion are inalienable rights for all citizens.

This policy lecture will help you stay informed on this important piece of legislation, and it lays out the specific reasons why all Americans, especially pastors, need to be concerned about keeping speech free and fair.

Click here to view the webinar.

Continue reading

10 Things to Ask Your Member of Congress During the Congressional Recess

by FRC Action

February 24, 2017

Congress has adjourned for President’s Day week, and Congressmen and Senators are traveling throughout their Districts and states hosting town halls and public forums. Asking questions at these events is a great way for you to help your elected representatives understand issues of concern for you and your family. For town hall schedules, call or visit the website of your Senators and Congressman (click here if you don’t know who your members of Congress are). Use this issue guide to raise topics related to the sanctity of life, marriage, family, and religious freedom.

To Ask Your Congressman and Senators:


  1. Do you support repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood as Congress did in 2015 only to have President Obama veto it?
  2. Will you commit to oppose abortion funding or subsidies for health insurance in any Republican plan to replace Obamacare? The House just passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to make the Hyde Amendment ban on funding and subsidizing insurance with abortion coverage permanent and government wide. These principles should be applied to any new GOP plan to replace Obamacare in the coming weeks.
  3. Will you support efforts to stop the onerous abuse of the “Johnson Amendment” by supporting the Free Speech Fairness Act sponsored by Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.)? This legislation ensures pastors and non-profits can engage in speech about political candidates so long as they do so during their normal non-profit activities and spend no more than a minimal amount on the candidate-related speech. It prevents liberal activist organizations and the IRS from threatening pastors and churches for speaking up on political issues.
  4. Will you support legislation to stop government discrimination against people who still believe that marriage is between one man and one woman? While the Supreme Court overturned the natural definition of marriage adopted into law by over 30 states, many people still respectfully believe marriage is between one man and one woman and should not be punished by the government for acting in accordance with that belief.
  5. Will you support passage of the “Conscience Protection Act” sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) and Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) to ensure the federal government does not discriminate against pro-life health care entities who object to being forced to participate in abortion?
  6. Will you support a vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which bars abortion on 5-month-old unborn babies when they begin to experience severe pain? This bill is sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and has previously passed the House twice.
  7. Will you oppose the so-called “Equality Act” which would force special protections for homosexual and transsexual lifestyles in 25 areas of federal law—with no religious liberty protections for people of faith who disagree with these lifestyles and same-sex marriage?
  8. Will you support the Born Alive Survivor’s Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ark.) and Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebr.), that requires doctors to provide the same care for infants born alive after an abortion that is otherwise provided to born alive infants? 

To Ask Just Your Senators:

  1. Will you support a vote on the recently House-passed “Disapproval Resolution” to block the Obama administration’s Title X regulation issued last December which punishes states that redirect family planning funds from Planned Parenthood to more holistic community health centers?
  2. With the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, will you vote to approve him since he will defend the original meaning of the Constitution and overturn Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges that forced abortion and same-sex marriage on all 50 states?

Continue reading

What Americans Want In Their Next Supreme Court Justice

by FRC Action

January 31, 2017

President Trump has set January 31 as the date of announcing his Supreme Court pick to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2016 Election exit polling, 2 in 10 voters (21 percent) said that appointments to the Supreme Court was the most important issue to them. These voters broke for Trump 56-41 percent. Exit polling also revealed that 7 in 10 voters nationwide say Supreme Court appointments were either the most important factor or an important factor in their decision to support a candidate.

This is a critical appointment by President Trump as he seeks to solidify the trust the American people have placed in him and provide leadership that will preserve their values, freedoms, and rights of conscience.

A recent poll conducted by the The Marist Poll revealed that 8 in 10 Americans (80 percent) say it is an “immediate priority” or an “important” one to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will interpret the Constitution as it was originally written. Fifty-three percent of Independents, 80 percent of Republicans and more than 4 in 10 Democrats (42 percent) also say it is an “immediate priority.” Almost 9 in 10 Americans (89 percent) also see protecting religious freedom as a priority, including 57 percent who describe it as an “immediate priority” and 32 percent who consider it an “important” one.

The American people clearly have overwhelming support for a Supreme Court Justice who will uphold the original intent of the constitution and protect religious freedom.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently vowed that he and his party will do everything they can to block a conservative Supreme Court nominee by the Trump administration—saying  he is prepared to fight “tooth and nail” should Trump not choose a “mainstream” nominee.

In reality, Schumer’s statement is extremely out of touch with “mainstream” America.

What he fails to recognize is that the mainstream does not support his views. The GOP has control of the White House, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures for a reason.  The fact is that one of the Republican Party’s most conservative platforms ever was adopted in 2016 and was accepted by the majority of America. Post-election polling showed that a majority of registered voters said the social issues in the Republican platform impacted their vote (51 percent), and 59 percent of Trump voters said that this impacted their presidential vote, compared to just 48 percent of Clinton supporters.

The American people have clearly spoken, and unfortunately for the Left, it was not in their favor. Voters went to the polls and chose a more conservative president to pick a conservative originalist Justice to the bench. 

In the 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, the High Court inserted itself into a significant moral debate and attempted to redefine the meaning of marriage for every American. In Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a 5-3 bench decision, the Court ruled that placing Texas abortion clinics in the same safety category as any other out-patient surgical clinic is too burdensome. This would have simply required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility in case there is an emergency or complications. Do we need to be reminded of Gosnell?

These are just a couple of the many rulings that have made the Supreme Court a top concern for American voters. President Trump’s promise to nominate a Justice in the mold of the late Justice Scalia was a breath of fresh air to an American public that is increasingly concerned about judicial activism and how it is impacting the moral fabric of the country. While there is little doubt that Sen. Schumer will do everything he can to stop a conservative, originalist Justice, his views do not represent the mainstream views of the American people. The nation is eager for a Justice who will not legislate from the bench but instead respect the Constitution and interpret it as our Founders intended.

Continue reading

Pro-Life Bills You Should Know About in 2017

by FRC Action

January 26, 2017

As we approach the March for Life tomorrow, we have an unprecedented opportunity before us to advance the culture of life with a unified pro-life House, Senate, and president. Here are some bills you should know about for 2017 that will defend the innocent and protect the consciences of the American people. This year, like never before, let your representatives know of your support for these crucial measures that will save lives.

1. S.184/H.R.7 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would permanently codify the Hyde Amendment and apply it across all federal government programs, preventing federal funds from paying for elective abortion and health care plans that include elective abortion coverage. This bill (H.R.7) passed the House on January 24, 2017, and its Senate companion bill (S.184) is currently pending a vote in the Senate.

2. H.R.37/S.220 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

This bill requires health care practitioners to treat babies born alive after failed abortion attempts with the same care they would provide to a baby born at the same gestational age. Additionally, it includes penalties for the intentional killing of infants born alive. The bill also gives the mother of a child born alive a private right of action to seek relief in case an abortionist were to kill her born-alive infant.

3. H.R.36 - Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

This bill will ban abortions after 20 weeks’ post-fertilization, the point at which science tells us a child can feel excruciating pain.

4. Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (pending introduction)

With this budget reconciliation bill, a special legislative vehicle that can pass the Senate with just 51 votes, pro-lifers can see Obamacare gutted, stopping subsidies for health care plans that cover abortion and see over $400 million rescinded in annual mandatory spending that currently funds Planned Parenthood. These taxpayer dollars would then be reallocated to other federally-qualified health centers that do not provide abortion. This bill passed the House and Senate in 2016, but unfortunately former President Obama vetoed it. President Trump has indicated that he would sign this legislation.

5. Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act (pending introduction)

This bill would ban dismemberment abortions in which unborn children are brutally torn apart limb from limb (also known as dilation and evacuation abortion).

6. Conscience Protection Act (pending introduction)

This bill would stop discrimination against pro-lifer Americans, by the government and entities it funds, who object to being forced to participate in abortion (such as doctors). This bill would codify abortion conscience laws like the Weldon Amendment that have to be re-added to annual spending bills, and the bill would give pro-life victims of discrimination the right to sue in court.

Continue reading

The Top 20 Actions for the Trump Administration in the First 100 Days

by FRC Action

January 19, 2017

Each presidential administration has the opportunity to impact everyday Americans in significant ways by issuing executive orders, agency regulations, and administrative guidance through memoranda, letters, and other internal documents issued by the agencies and departments of the Executive Branch.

In the last eight years, the Obama administration enacted a great number of Executive Orders and agency actions that Many of these were extra-legal or illegal and it is critical that this lawlessness be undone.

Here are the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues in the first 100 days through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty and put our nation on the right track.

Action #1 — Restore The Mexico City Policy

The Obama administration rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which was first implemented by President Reagan, to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding international organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas. Millions of taxpayer dollars have funded abortion providers like International Planned Parenthood. One way to address the problem of funding abortion providers overseas is to rescind Obama’s Memorandum on the Mexico City Policy, issued January 23, 2009, and to restore President George W. Bush’s Memorandum Restoring the Mexico City Policy, issued on March 29, 2001.

Action #2 — Defund UNFPA

The Obama administration restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund which funds coercive abortion practices overseas, especially in China. Funding such entities violates current law prohibiting U.S. funds from involvement in coercive abortion practices. One way to fix this problem is to restore President George W. Bush’s State Department restriction on UNFPA funding first issued on July 24, 2002, and continued through fiscal year 2008.

Action #3 — Establish Transparency Regarding Obamacare’s Abortion Coverage

Americans should be informed about whether their Obamacare plans cover abortion or not, especially since even the abortion funding schemes in Obamacare require such notice and a “separate” payment for abortion in such plans. However, the Obama administration implemented rules issued on February 27, 2015 allowing insurers to hide the abortion surcharge in plans that cover abortion, and which are subsidized by federal premium credits. Moreover, the ACA requires multistate plans to provide one pro-life plan in each state. However, rules issued on February 24, 2015 implementing this requirement do not require pro-life plans until next year.

Another example of lawlessness is the Obama administration’s rule on October 2, 2013 which allowed federal employee subsidies for health plans with abortion coverage for Members of Congress and their staff, despite current law forbidding such subsidies.

Action #4 — Withdraw Title X Planned Parenthood Funding

The Obama administration proposed a rule on September 7, 2016 to block states from defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers from Title X. This problematic rule would harm states that have chosen to prioritize family planning funds for health clinics and community health centers that seamlessly offer a full range of healthcare services including family planning, but do not participate in abortion. This problem could be fixed by simply withdrawing the proposed Title X regulation.

Action #5 — Defund Human-Animal Chimera Research

The Obama administration proposed a new NIH policy, issued on August 5, 2016, that would allow for NIH to fund human-animal chimera research. The proposed scope of funding would include research which attempts to give an animal (a chimp, pig, mouse, etc.) a substantially human brain or the ability to produce human sperm or egg cells, which can affect heredity. This serious violation of bioethics and common human decency could be fixed by simply withdrawing the proposed chimera funding policy.

Action #6 — Defund Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Obama administration issued an executive order on March 9, 2009 that allowed funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research by narrowing the enforcement of the Dickey-Wicker amendment in federal law which prevents funding for research that harms or destroys human embryos. The administration rescinded human embryo protections in federal research put in place by President Bush, and implemented its embryo-destructive research policies on July 30,

2009 in NIH’s “Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research.” One way to address the Obama administration’s approval of embryo-destructive research funding is to restore President George W. Bush’s June 20, 2007 executive order protecting human embryos in federally funded research and by redirecting funding for ethical stem cell and regenerative research proving effective in the treatment of patients for numerous diseases.

Action #7 — Reform Federally Funded IVF Regulations

On April 3, 2012, the Obama administration’s DOD began funding IVF treatments for active military personnel but without sufficient protections for human embryos created in the process.

The FY17 Military, Constructions, Veterans Affairs appropriations law expanded this allowance to include veterans, and while it cross-referenced the Dickey-Wicker amendment which protects against funding embryo destruction under the Health and Human Services Department, it did not explicitly prevent against embryo destruction. One way to address the embryo protection issue in IVF treatments is to direct DOD and VA to only fund IVF fertility treatments in which human embryos are not knowingly destroyed, discarded, donated to research, or otherwise harmed prior to embryo transfer.

Action #8 — Establish Ethical Tissue Research

The Obama administration’s DOJ has refused to investigate potential violations of federal fetal tissue laws and federal medical privacy laws by abortion providers and tissue procurement companies. A way to address this issue is for DOJ to investigate potential violations of the law revealed in shocking undercover videos and in the work of the House Energy and Commerce’s Select Panel on Infant Lives by abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and by human tissue procurement companies like Stem Express for: (a) selling fetal tissue for profit; (b) changing abortion methods without consent for tissue procurement; (c) violating HIPPA privacy protections for women in their obtaining and selling of fetal tissue; (d) procuring fraudulent IRB certifications; and (e) potentially killing born-alive babies for the purpose of organ harvesting.

Another way to address this issue is to direct HHS/NIH to implement a moratorium on fetal tissue research in which the tissue was derived from aborted fetuses, while ethical alternatives are explored. In this regard, the administration should revise the “Policy and Procedures for Obtaining Human Fetal Tissue for Research Purposes in the Intramural Research Program at NIH,” which was issued on December 15, 2015, but last updated October 7, 2016, and should restore President George H.W. Bush’s May 19, 1992 rules establishing a fetal tissue bank obtained from ethical sources like ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

Action #9 — Nullify The HHS Contraception Mandate

The Obama administration’s HHS contraceptive mandate that requires all employers to offer no-cost contraceptive drugs and devices is a troubling threat to conscience, especially since it involves coverage of some pills and procedures which can destroy human embryos. While the Supreme Court upheld the right of businesses like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc. from the regulation, the Obama administration issued a regulation with an accounting gimmick for the non-profit “religious organizations” on July 2, 2013. This problem could be fixed by ending all litigation enforcing the HHS contraception mandate, issuing broad conscience exemptions from mandates requiring coverage of any health services or items that violate the beliefs of a religious organization, and revising the HRSAWomen’s Preventive Services Guidelines” to exclude the provision of drugs or devices which can destroy human embryos.

Action #10 — Restore Healthcare Conscience Protections

Among our first freedoms, enshrined in the First Amendment, is the right to freedom of religion and of conscience. The Obama administration has often undermined religious freedom by refusing to enforce conscience protections in existing federal law to address violations in California, New York, and other states. On June 21, 2016, HHS issued a letter which narrowly reinterpreted the Weldon Amendment to exclude instances in which, for instance, California churches are being forced by the state to cover elective abortion in their health care plans. On February 23, 2011, the Obama administration also issued regulations that repealed the Bush rules enforcing federal conscience protection laws. One way to address these conscience issues is by rescinding the 2016 HHS letter regarding the Weldon Amendment. Another action which could be taken is restoring President George Bush’s December 19, 2008 regulation, “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law.”

Action #11 — Rescind Hospital Requirements Regarding Treatment of People Identifying as Transgender

On June 16, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a rule under the auspices of promoting innovation, flexibility, and improvement in patient care, but which is expected to require federally regulated health care entities to violate their conscience. The rule will force hospitals and other providers to implement policies to provide medical services related to gender identity or sexual orientation.

Action #12 — Rescind Obama’s Title IX Bathroom Guidance

The Obama administration’s Department of Education issued guidance to redefine sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity for schools, which is currently being litigated. This guidance would force schools to allow boys into the shower rooms and bathrooms with girls and vice versa. It is possible for the new administration to rescind the May 13, 2016, “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students” and the May 2016 “Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students,” and to rescind parts of the April 29, 2014 “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” and parts of the April 2015 “Title IX Resource Guide.”

Action #13 — Take Down the Title IX Waiver List

In accordance with the Obama administration’s hostility toward religion, and in response to requests from the Human Rights Campaign, the Department of Education issued a black list of religious institutions of higher education that requested waivers from Title IX requirements, as well as, in some cases, their applications and the Department’s responses. This list, linked from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights “Religious Exemption” page, should not be subject to public search and should be taken down.

Action #14 — Rescind Regulations Redefining Sex to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

The Obama administration also issued regulations redefining sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity for multiple agencies. These redefinitions have far-reaching implications for homeless shelters that received funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, renters of facilities managed by the General Services Administration, medical care providers, and private employers.

For example, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the May 18, 2016, “Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities,” that defined “on the basis of sex” in Section 1557 of the Obamacare law to include “termination of pregnancy or recovery therefrom” and “gender identity.” The rule states that it is discriminatory for a covered entity to deny or limit coverage “or impose additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage, for any health services that are ordinarily or exclusively available to individuals of one sex, to a transgender individual.” It also prohibits covered entities from categorically excluding gender transitions from coverage, and from denying or limiting coverage or imposing additional costs for specific health services related to gender transition if such denial, limitation, or restriction results in discrimination against a transgender individual.

Similarly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a resource guide addressing sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, in June of 2015, which prohibits private employers from taking sexual orientation and gender identity into consideration in the hiring and termination of employees. All of these regulations should be rescinded.

Action #15 — Address Regulations Regarding Military Service of People Identifying as Transgender

The Obama administration decided to change the long-standing regulatory policy excluding persons who identify as transgender to serve in the military. In conjunction with that decision, the Department of Defense issued a number of regulations that undermine troop readiness, recruitment, and retention. Examples of regulations that should be addressed include the June 30, 2016 “In-Service Transition for Transgender Service Members,” the July 29, 2016 “Guidance for Treatment of Gender Dysphoria for Active and Reserve Component Service Members,” and the September 30, 2016 handbook on transgender service in the U.S. Military.

Action #16 — Defend the Freedom to Believe in Natural Marriage

The administration should issue an executive order protecting federal employees and contractors from discrimination by the executive branch on the basis of their view that marriage is between a man and a woman. In the wake of the Obergefell ruling redefining “marriage,” agency actions have put pressure on those who continue to support the stance President Obama had prior to 2013 that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Action #17 — Rescind Common Core Requirements

The administration should rescind, in part, the letter regarding ESEA Flexibility, issued September 22, 2011, that allows for states to receive an exemption from key standards of No Child Left Behind. The letter added ambiguous requirements for states to receive a waiver, and used this waiver authority to allow the Department of Education to pressure states over educational standards related to curricula, such as with Common Core.

Action #18 — Strengthen DOD Religious Freedom Protection

The Obama administration issued regulations (AFI 1-1, SECNAVINST 1730.8B, and AR 600- 20) that limited the standards articulated in Section 532 and 533 of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act to protect expressions of belief reflecting conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs. The strict scrutiny standard of religious liberty protection concerning the least restrictive means as articulated in DOD Instruction 1300.17 should also be included in the Air Force directive. In addition, this directive should require the Air Force to remove Section 2.12 from AFI 1-1.

The new Congress and administration should also pressure the service chiefs to promulgate messages reaffirming the robust religious freedom and free speech rights of chaplains. These messages should include the articulation of such protections in Section 533 of the FY2013 and Section 532 of the FY2014 NDAA, and should note chaplains’ speech is not limited in the same manner that other government employee speech may be limited.

Action #19 — Adhere to the International Religious Freedom Act

The Obama administration was woefully resistant to protecting religious freedom in its foreign policy stance, and was late to describe the persecution of certain religious minorities as genocide. The new administration and Congress should promote religious freedoms throughout the federal government engaged in overseas activities by calling attention to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-292, as amended by Public Law 106-55, Public Law 106-113, Public Law 107-228, Public Law 108-332, Public Law 108-458, Public Law 112-75, Public Law 113-271, and Public Law 114-71), and ensuring these laws are followed.

Action #20 — Increase American Influence on Religious Freedom Abuses Abroad

The new administration and Congress should seriously consider maintaining a list of prisoners persecuted abroad on account of their faith, and also identify foreign officials responsible for religious freedom abuses (and where appropriate, publish their names in the Federal Register). In addition, the government should compile a list of opportunities to condition visa grants and other actions based on their support of religious freedom.

Continue reading

Why We Can’t Wait: A Call for MLK-like Leadership

by Patrina Mosley

January 16, 2017

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist…if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies—a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.”

- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963), Why We Can’t Wait

These are powerful and prophetic words from the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., words that should be heeded today; for we can no longer wait to wake up from this racial nightmare that we are now in where black liberation ideologies are being foisted on the minds of young Americans. A teacher’s organization is encouraging teachers to provide Black Lives Matter (BLM) curriculum in the classroom one day every week, along with wearing BLM apparel. One teacher who has gotten on board with this agenda says “Black Lives Matter functions with 13 principles that I think are good and healthy for kids to learn about.” Considering what the Black Lives Matter movement has publically stated, this is a frightening prospect. Instead, children should be learning about the inspiring leadership of Dr. King, whose philosophy and principles we have all benefited from today. BLM is the very “black nationalist” ideology he warned would try to fill the void for truth if left vacant.

The Black Lives Matter movement states that they are “a chapter-based national organization working for the validity of Black life and “to (re)build the Black liberation movement” (emphasis added). What does that mean? To answer that we need to look at who the Black Liberation movement was. The Black Liberation movement, more commonly known as the Black Liberation Army (BLA), was a splinter group developed after the Black Panther Party dissolved. Their four badges of honor were anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-imperialism. Secondly, they proclaimed “That we must of necessity strive for the abolishment of these systems and for the institution of Socialistic relationships in which Black people have total and absolute control over their own destiny as a people (emphasis added). This is essentially a description of black anarchy. Third, “in order to abolish our systems of oppression, we must utilize the science of class struggle, develop this science as it relates to our unique national condition” (emphasis added). In other words, perfect the science of profiting at being a victim of society. The Black Liberation Army was reported to be involved in numerous police shootings and murders throughout the 1970’s.

Black Lives Matter also emphasizes the same social and economic struggles as the Black Liberation movement once did, calling its members to “live Black and buy Black” to create wealth only in the black community. Black Lives Matter has also extended the Black Liberation Army’s interest in being “anti-sexism” by affirming “the lives of Black queer and trans folks, disabled folks, Black-undocumented folks, folks with records, women and all Black lives along the gender spectrum. It centers those that have been marginalized within Black liberation movements. It is a tactic to (re)build the Black liberation movement” (emphasis added).

One of their core principles of being Queer Affirming states, “We are committed to fostering a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking or, rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual unless s/he or they disclose otherwise” (emphasis added). Sadly, the movement seems to be against the family model that is the foundation of society.

BLM also seems to be wholeheartedly committed to what they call “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another…” A kind of America where innumerable government community programs are substituted for moral values taught by a mom and dad, perhaps?

The guiding principles of this movement take the African-American community in a downward spiral of black anarchy that erases the family and casts no vision for a sustainable future. These principles are neither good nor healthy and are vastly different from the successful principles of Dr. King.

The most successful model for social change we can draw from is itself the civil rights movement of the sixties, led by the late Dr. King. He was able to articulate what the real problems were and to cast a unifying vision for all Americans to move forward. Dr. King also called the collection of his brave volunteers an army, but “an army whose allegiance was to God … it was an army that would sing but not slay … no arsenal except its faith, no currency but its conscience.”

Dr. King took universal Christian principles that inherently speak to every human conscience and used them to make a crisis of conscience to promote action. He made sure the world televised his non-violent marches for the enforcement of equal rights, while dogs and water hoses were unleashed on their bodies, knocking them to ground only to be beaten down more with clubs and fists. The world saw the participants of these non-violent marches singing praises to God and stopping together to sink to their knees on the pavement to pray.

Dr. King led the fight for civil rights by calling for action through policy, not burning down buildings. After the 1956 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Alabama’s bus segregation laws, King co-founded the Christian Leadership Conference throughout the South which became the leading organizer for action in the civil rights movement. after many arrests, non-violent marches, sit-in’s and appeals, his leadership paved the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and a Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.

What an astonishing difference King’s efforts have made. His movement has largely accomplished its goals, and we are alive to see it in beautiful ways today, from the first black president, to multi-ethnic families and churches, to endearing friendships that would have never taken place had segregation existed today. Why are we enjoying the success of the MLK movement today and not the BLA? I believe the answer is that any social movement not based on Christian principles cannot be sustained and will fail. Christianity operates in truth and is a benefit to all people, no matter one’s color, gender, or culture.

Dr. King cast this vision, stating:

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.”

We must be the voice of truth and fill the void. We cannot afford to wait, hoping things will just get better. Our destination should be what it was always meant to be, “to sit at the table of brotherhood.”

For this was God’s eternal and mysterious plan since the beginning of mankind according to Ephesians 3, where the apostle Paul explains God’s advanced plan to make one unified body out of diversity, which displays His wisdom. Any plan that inherently goes against this will not succeed and cannot be blessed by God. We should seek out policies of righteousness and justice just as Dr. King so diligently fought for. Today we honor him and his contributions to all Americans, and pray that leaders like him will take up the mantle to be the alternative and distinct Christian voice for truth and justice. 

Continue reading

The Day After November 8th

by Unix Diza

November 9, 2016

With over 590 days passed since Ted Cruz became the first person to announce his candidacy for president, this election cycle is finally over. Many news articles, headlines, and Facebook posts in the months leading up to the election revealed the deep disunity within our nation and the discouragement that was felt by many voters. Regardless of whatever our first reaction may be to the outcome of November 8th, we must go into the day after the election with a proper foundation.

Where do we find our hope? Our hope is ultimately found in Jesus Christ, and to place our faith in anything else is to stand on an unstable foundation. Scripture reminds us over and over again of the sovereignty of God. Daniel 2:21 says, “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” From this verse, we can know that whoever is president was established by God. It is in this high view of God that we should root ourselves. Furthermore, the peace and security that the Gospel provides us should be treasured in our hearts and at the forefront of our minds on a daily basis. Admittedly, this is all easier said than done and is something that we must remind ourselves of constantly. Our default position should be to fix our eyes on Jesus, “the author and perfecter of faith,” as Hebrews 12:2 says.

Of course, this biblical bedrock does not exempt us from our civic duty as citizens. God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are two parallel truths. Our theology will not excuse us from our responsibility of being involved in the affairs of our nation, but should actually do the opposite. Our faith should inform our outlook on every sphere of life. We must always be cognizant of God’s sovereignty while at the same time being obedient by engaging the culture for Christ. We are to be in the world but not of it.

So how do we move forward after November 8th? The bottom line is that Christians must seek to influence and shape culture from the various vocations to which God has called us.

The doctrine of vocation simply recognizes that, “God has chosen to work through human beings, who, in their different capacities and according to their different talents, serve each other,” as Gene Edward Veith Jr. writes in his book God at Work. In a later chapter, Veith writes that, “Our vocation is not something we choose for ourselves. It is something to which we are called.” Consequently, every Christian is critical to the future of our nation because we each have unique talents and abilities that were given to us by God.

Moreover, in a democratic republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, we must remember that government is a reflection of the culture. As Henry Adams wrote in his book Democracy, “No representative government can long be much better or much worse than the society it represents.” In light of that, as believers, we must seek to wholeheartedly engage culture in and from whatever vocation God has called us to. Martin Luther King Jr. said it well: “If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.” We must all strive to daily live out our vocations in life with excellence unto the glory of God.

The manner in which Christians should engage culture is a topic that the church has debated for centuries. Thankfully, there have been examples of Christian engagement in culture that we can look to for guidance on how to transform the situation we find ourselves in today.

In A letter to Diognetus, the writer describes Christians living during the 2nd century: “They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country.” This particular description of Christians who lived over 1,800 years ago displays the sweet paradox of the Christian life. Can what was said of Christians in the 2nd century be said of us today?

A little further along the timeline of history we come across the life of an individual who epitomizes Christian engagement in the culture—William Wilberforce. Perhaps best known for being the leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade in England, Wilberforce also made some insightful statements regarding Christians living out their faith in the public sphere:

  • Surely the principles of Christianity lead to action as well as meditation.”
  • I would suggest that faith is everyone’s business. The advance or decline of faith is so intimately connected to the welfare of a society that it should be of particular interest to a politician.”
  • My walk is a public one. My business is in the world, and I must mix in the assemblies of men or quit the post which Providence seems to have assigned me.”

In conclusion, we must remember that on this day there are winners and there are losers. In the races that we won, we need to acknowledge victory with compassion. In the races that we lost, we need to accept defeat graciously. We must enter November 9th with the firm resolve that God is sovereign and He has given each of us a role to play in continuing the fight for faith, family, and freedom.

Continue reading

Your Vote Counts!

by Unix Diza

October 26, 2016

Should I vote during this election?” “Does my vote even count?” Those are some of the questions that you might be asking yourself as November 8th gets closer and closer. I would say “yes” to both questions. You should vote during this election. Your vote does count. Of course, the next logical question is, who do I vote for? To answer this question, many arguments could be made and the potential for disagreement is high. However, that does not detract from the point that voting this election is something that all Christians in the United States should take seriously. To lay a foundation for why you should vote during this election, we will take a look at statesmen, statistics, the Supreme Court, and Scripture.

With the recent success of the Broadway musical Hamilton, there has been a renewed interest in the life of Alexander Hamilton, the United States’ first Secretary of the Treasury and signer of the U.S. Constitution. As one of our Founding Fathers, we should strongly consider what he has to say about voting. He said, “A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.” Samuel Adams, Founding Father and cousin of John Adams, said, “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” Hamilton and Adams, as did many of the Founding Fathers, recognized the importance of voting and being involved in the political sphere.

So how have we, as evangelical Christians, done in our stewardship of the privilege of voting? The answer frankly is we have done a poor job. Statistics from the 2012 general election tell us that there were around 90 million Christians of voting age in the United States. Of those 90 million Christians, only 77 million Christians were registered to vote. Of those 77 million, only 51 million voted in the election. That means there were about 39 million eligible Christian voters who were either not registered or just decided not to vote. Breaking down the 39 million, we know that approximately 13 million Christians were not registered and 26 million decided not to go to the polls. The importance of these statistics is made particularly clear, for example, when we know that Mitt Romney lost the popular vote to Barack Obama by a margin of just 3,476,755 votes.

Yet all of our focus should not just be centered on the presidential race. We should remember the critical state and local elections that will be taking place this November. It is perhaps at the state and local level that one person’s vote counts all the more. For example, in the 2013 New Jersey General Assembly District 2 election, the race was decided by a margin of just 40 votes. The 2014 Arizona Second Congressional District election was decided by only 179 votes. In what has been such a polarizing presidential election, people often forget that there are other important races. The executive branch is just one-third of our government. Elections this November, for example, will decide who will be in control of the Senate going forward. The involvement of people of faith who will choose to vote their values in these races, especially the battleground states like Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio, will probably be a big factor regardless of whether we have a red or blue White House in January.

Another factor to consider this upcoming election is the vacancy in the Supreme Court left open by the recent passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. It is worth noting that our next president will potentially appoint not just one, but possibly as many as four justices to the Supreme Court. Since 1970, the average Supreme Court Justice has served for about 25 years. In light of this, the new president’s appointments will have lasting effects that will endure well beyond their four-year term. It is also worth noting that not only does our next president have power to appoint new Supreme Court justices, but he or she will have the power to potentially appoint judges to any of our nation’s 94 federal district courts and 13 courts of appeals.

The importance of the Supreme Court is further highlighted by its recent decisions that were split 5-4. There are times when a 5-4 vote has gone down in our favor, such as the decision to uphold religious liberty in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Yet we are also particularly cognizant of the times when an unfavorable split decision was rendered, such as the recent Obergefell v. Hodges case that gave us court-created same-sex marriage. With the court currently at eight seats, whoever will be the ninth Justice will play a crucial role in future cases that go before our nation’s highest court.

Your vote counts. It is as simple as that. We cannot afford to stay home this upcoming election. In Mark 12:17, Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” The general principle we can take away from this verse is that Christians are to be in the world but not of it. We know that God is sovereign and in control of everything. He is our ultimate authority and deserves our utmost allegiance. Since living under a democratic government is a blessing from God, we have been given an incredible stewardship that is not given to everyone. That means that if we have the opportunity to vote, we should vote. Vote your values. Exercise your right and privilege in this country to vote and do not forget to vote all the way down the ballot. There is much at stake this election, so this November 8th be sure to get out and vote. If you have not registered yet, visit to get helpful tools on registering to vote, important deadlines, voter guides, and more. Thanks for reading and thanks in advance for voting for faith, family, and freedom.

Continue reading

2016: It’s the Courts, Stupid!

by Ken Blackwell

October 17, 2016

This article was originally published in Newsmax Magazine in June 2016.

Deborah Jordahl’s night of horror began on Oct. 3, 2013, when her nocturnal peace was broken by the “Boom! Boom! Boom!” of fists banging on the front door, ordering her to open up.

When she did, a life-altering assault began after a swarm of armed men barged into her peaceful home.

They were, in fact, officers with guns and a battering ram. They rushed into her living room and barked commands. Her children were roused from their sleep, bleary eyed, with armed deputies standing over them.

Officers gathered her family together in one room, where they guarded them as if they were members of a drug gang that had been busted. Strangers searched their house, seizing computers and cellphones, which they soon confiscated and carried out the door.

As a conservative political strategist in Madison, Wis., who’d played a significant role in Gov. Scott Walker’s landmark reforms of public-sector unions, Jordahl probably never imagined what her conservatism would cost her. Milwaukee’s Democratic prosecutors were fishing for dirt on Walker, and Jordahl was seen as a Walker ally.

As she would later recount to the good government Wisconsin Watchdog organization, the greatest pain of the ordeal was watching her “little girl” — her 15-year-old daughter — sit in her pajamas on the living room couch weeping as a deputy warned her not to tell any of her friends that their house had been raided.

At one point, Jordahl decided she’d had enough. She got off the sofa to call her attorney. But the sheriff’s deputy assigned to guard her stepped in. “She backed me down on the sofa and told me I could not call anyone,” Jordahl recalls.

The experience of Jordahl and other families caught up in the Badger State’s infamous “John Doe” raids were later chronicled by the National Review as “Wisconsin’s shame.”

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the Walker probe in July 2015, it apparently agreed with that characterization. In exonerating Jordahl and everyone else ensnared in what appeared to be a politically motivated reprisal, the court found that prosecutors had relied on an “unconstitutional” pretext for their raids, declaring it “unsupported in either reason or law.”

Protecting Liberty

Using the mechanisms of government, whether at the state or federal level, to persecute people for their political activities sounds like something you’d expect to hear coming out of Russia, China, or Iran — not the United States of America. But “Wisconsin’s shame,” as its been called, vividly illustrates the vital role that the judicial branch plays as the last, best hope of protecting individual liberty.

Conservatives, already stung by the IRS targeting operation that attempted to mute anti-Obama organizations in the run-up to the 2012 election, are keenly aware that after seven years of President Obama’s tactic of pushing the legal envelope on everything from the individual mandate to illegal immigration to the definition of marriage, the integrity of the rule of law in America now hangs in the balance.

Consider: A Clinton victory this November would mean 12 consecutive years of radical liberal rule — and a federal bench stacked with hundreds of left-leaning judicial appointments.

A de facto third Obama term by Hillary would cement a barrage of extreme actions meant to transform the spiritual and cultural fabric of America. That 12-year span, by the way, would likely turn into 16 years, given the advantage any incumbent president has in winning re-election.

If that happens, Hillary’s last day in office would be in January 2025. At that point, Democrats would have controlled all federal judicial branch appointments for 24 of the last 32 years — with George W. Bush’s eight years in office the only Republican exception in over three decades of Democratic rule.

Changing America

So what would a post-Obama, post-Clinton America look like? A liberal Clinton Court would rubber stamp all the Obama administration’s unconstitutional policies.

A Clinton Justice Department would work to ensure any malfeasance occurring during Obama’s presidency never saw the light of public exposure. Emboldened and empowered, the Clinton administration would be free to continue flouting the Constitution.

Don’t just imagine the federal agents at the front door confiscating your only protection against criminals, and then hauling you off as a criminal yourself.

You want to start a local conservative group because you are concerned about our growing debt? Keep an eye out for the IRS. Have an idea or innovation that would benefit countless people? Try starting a business with countless regulatory tentacles squeezing you in their ever tightening embrace. For Second Amendment champions, restrictions on open carry and magazine capacities might be the least of their worries.

This haunting version of what life could be like in just a few years appears increasingly realistic for the majority of Americans who are watching their most precious freedoms erode right before their eyes.

Almost daily, we find ourselves barraged with reports that evoke a collective “What is happening?” sentiment across America.

The Supreme Court just recently heard a case in which more than half the states in the country are challenging President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order for illegal immigrants — an order he originally said he could not legally execute, before he decided unilaterally to “change the law.”

It would seem to be a no-brainer that any court, with any understanding of the Constitution, would have to strike this order down. Two lower federal courts have already done so.

But Supreme Court watchers fully expect the current eight-member court to be evenly divided on this case. While that means the lower court ruling blocking Obama’s dictum will stand, what if the case is re-argued next year with Hillary Clinton having filled the ninth seat on the high court’s bench?

The outcome is obvious: The unconstitutional order would be deemed lawful, and the national security of the United States would then be placed in even more peril than it already is.

Remember President Obama’s executive orders regarding guns and background checks? Those directives in the eyes of most legal scholars were unconstitutional. But if those cases reach the Supreme Court during a Clinton administration, a court majority fashioned by Mrs. Clinton could be expected to uphold Obama’s orders.

2016 and SCOTUS

With the 2016 election just months away, the Supreme Court will clearly be an issue debated by both presidential and Senate candidates.

So far, Republican senators have been able to hold the line, unwavering in their insistence that the voting public should play a key role in selecting the next Supreme Court justice through their votes for president and U.S. Senate.

As laudable as this may be, the solid red wall in the Senate can only hold so long.

If Hillary Clinton is elected she will stack the court with a liberal majority that would leave our country unrecognizable within a few short years.

One sign of her thinking: Earlier this year she praised the idea of nominating Obama himself to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

The New York Times recently conceded that a Supreme Court featuring Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, would be the most liberal court in 50 years.

Obama’s allies have portrayed Garland as a congenial, intelligent, nonideological moderate.

But no one has any illusions about Garland’s status as the reliable, fifth vote as part of a liberal court majority on every meaningful case for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, why would Garland enjoy the support of liberals in virtually every walk of life — academia, labor unions, anti-Second Amendment groups, and pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL?

This is the left’s idea of a centrist. Should Clinton become president, and Democrats ride her coattails to seize control of the Senate, she might fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia with someone even further to the left than Garland.

And more vacancies, both on the federal bench generally and the Supreme Court, are obviously on the way.

Justice Ginsburg has reportedly endured serious health difficulties and is anticipated to retire in the next few years. Hillary’s election could expedite that decision.

Indeed, the liberal majority would likely climb to an overwhelming six votes with the retirement of swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who will celebrate his 80th birthday this coming July. At that point, the remaking of life in America could happen very quickly.

Under the Obama administration, we have already witnessed the heavy hand of government when the IRS abused its power and specifically targeted conservative citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out against federal government overreach.

Here are just a few legal ramparts you can expect to see demolished and left in ruins following another long stretch of Democratic control over the federal bench:

Unbridled Environmental Regulations. We have witnessed the EPA going around Congress to abuse its power, attempting to shut down entire industries through regulatory fiat, and making it so expensive to operate a farm or a small business that family-owned enterprises have to shut down or scale back.

Occasionally, the courts have slapped down the EPA for its expansive interpretation of the Clean Water Act and other statutes. But stack the federal courts with enough liberal judges and anyone breaking with the left’s green theology will find themselves in deep trouble.

Global Warming Runs Amok. Already, liberal attorneys general in some states are organizing to investigate, shame, and possibly prosecute corporations that refuse to kowtow to left-wing environmentalists’ views on global warming. Could individuals be subject to fines or even jail time, if they refuse to subscribe to the far left’s agenda on global warming?

It’s hard to imagine, but when the judiciary is no longer moored to the founders’ intent in the Constitution, can any right be taken for granted?

Freedom of Religion. Attacks on faith already occur regularly, and have reached such levels of absurdity that entire states are under attack for simply codifying that men and women should use the appropriate restroom.

This preposterous course will only be accelerated by a President Hillary Clinton and the justices she nominates for the Supreme Court.

These attacks on our First Amendment religious liberty — and common sense — come in spite of overwhelming majorities that want to protect these freedoms, and citizens, from an extreme agenda.

Just this past November the city of Houston voted by 61 percent to 39 percent to reject an ordinance that would have allowed transgenders to use any bathroom they want, putting the privacy and safety of women and girls in jeopardy.

The city is overwhelmingly Democratic; it hasn’t had a Republican mayor in over three decades.
Thankfully, in that instance common sense won out over extreme political correctness. But when a middle school choir wanted to sing the National Anthem at the 9/11 Memorial, security guards stepped in and ordered them to cease their unauthorized “demonstration.”

In an age of political correctness, common sense is rudely shown the door.

Common sense will matter little to Clinton or the ideological extremists she puts on the Supreme Court.

The current court has already given license to those who would put honest, law-abiding people out of business simply for freely exercising their faith.

Under a Hillary court, people practicing their faith outside the four walls of a church, synagogue, or mosque may find themselves not just in court, like the Little Sisters of the Poor or Hobby Lobby, but also in debt, paying crippling fines or even facing jail time — all because of their religious beliefs.

Think it can’t happen in America? Think again.

Freedom of Speech. In a world refashioned by a liberal Supreme Court majority instituted by Hillary Clinton, the First Amendment will cease to exist as we know it. Far-fetched? Tell that to Bremerton High School Coach Joe Kennedy in Washington state.

For seven years, after every high school football game he coached, win or lose, Kennedy would go to the 50-yard line, take a knee, and say a quick prayer.

Parents often commented on what a great example Coach Kennedy was setting for the kids.

But the Bremerton School District and its lawyers saw it differently. They ordered Coach Kennedy to stop praying, telling him he could not even bow his head.

Coach Kennedy refused, saying this was a violation of his religious freedom and that he was forcing no one to pray with him.

That was not enough for the school district, and they suspended him right before the final game of the season. His case is now making its way through the courts.

Right to Life. Expect the value of life itself to be rendered meaninglessness under a Hillary Clinton court.

The current 4-4 split means the court is literally one vote away from legalizing partial-birth abortion, which is tantamount to infanticide.

Court Rules

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, one of the campaign’s slogans was “It’s the economy, stupid.” It was an acknowledgement that the era’s economic recession was on the minds of most Americans.

With the Supreme Court now hanging in the balance, conservatives and Republicans — as well as freedom-loving Americans of any political stripe or inclination — should offer their own take on that theme in 2016: “It’s the court, stupid.”

Make no mistake: The untimely death of Justice Scalia means control of the Supreme Court, and the future of law in America, hangs in the balance this November. Not to mention, of course, control of the presidency and the U.S. Senate.

The stakes are enormous. Either party could score a “trifecta” by winning the presidency and the Senate, because that also means they would likely take control of the federal judiciary.

Having witnessed up close the terrible damage done to America over just the past seven years, it is my deep conviction that if the Supreme Court of the United States falls into Hillary Clinton’s hands, the great and noble American experiment, with all its success, will one day cease to exist.

Just as Deborah Jordahl’s family did in Wisconsin, we could wake up in an Orwellian nightmare where the Bill of Rights is made to weather-vane in the vengeful winds of politics.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Ronald Reagan warned in 1964. “We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same — or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

I believe Reagan’s words never rang more true than they do today.

My fellow Americans, this November it’s all on the line. We cannot afford to be silent. We must stop this.

Continue reading

A Hillary Clinton Presidency: The Radical Revolution

by Sarah Perry

October 3, 2016

After a lengthy race and the winnowing of a deep political field, America is faced with just two legitimate choices for the presidency in 2016. For voters committed to “sitting this one out,” the full picture of a Clinton presidency makes clear the urgent case for a candidate who will select justices that will honor the Constitution and its intent, prioritize the safety of American families over political correctness, uphold the sanctity of human life, and defend America’s First Freedom, the freedom of religion. 

As president, Hillary Clinton—a self-described “progressive who gets things done”[i] —will set our nation upon an irreversible path, facilitating the most aggressive and radically leftist administration in history. Aside from Clinton’s continued lack of transparency, her bungling of Benghazi at the cost of American lives, her failure to follow security protocols on classified information, and her 20-year-long claim of a “vast right wing conspiracy,”[ii] her ambitions for her presidency are nothing short of chilling. The lengthy list of priorities Clinton has presented during her campaign[iii] is utterly transformational to the structure of an exceptional America rooted in constitutional conservatism and a respect for individual rights. A political radical who admires left-wing revolutionary Saul Alinksy,[iv] Clinton’s campaign website outlines extensive policy positions and audacious pledges in more than 40 pages. In her first 100 days in office, Clinton’s leadership would be nothing short of catastrophic. What follows is a policy description of what Americans can expect in the first 100 days of a Hillary Clinton administration. 


1. Religious Freedom

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court affirmed that Obama’s HHS mandate was a violation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when applied to closely-held corporations. Clinton, however, voiced a fiery dissent, claiming it was application of RFRA that was never intended. She called the ruling “deeply disturbing,” stating, “Many more companies will claim religious beliefs. Some will be sincere, others maybe not. We’re going to see this one insurable service [abortifacients] cut out for many women…This is a really bad, slippery slope.”[v] When referencing state RFRA laws in Indiana and Arkansas, Clinton tweeted, “Like IN law, AR bill goes beyond protecting religion, would permit unfair discrimination against #LGBT Americans. I urge Governor to veto.”[vi] While neither state law referenced LGBT people, Clinton criticized both as being simply a shield for discriminatory behavior. Her comments point to a plan to curtail RFRA’s protections for public expressions of faith in the strictest possible way.

Clinton will take her cue from the Obama administration that has toiled tirelessly to limit religious liberty protections under RFRA. The latest proof is in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ report, “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties.”[vii] In it, the Commission makes the stunning assertion, “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”[viii] A few days prior to the report’s release, Clinton used nearly identical language in a campaign speech, calling Trumps supporters a “basket of deplorables… racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamsphobic, you name it.”[ix] She has also famously said that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”[x] Such toxic and oppressive rhetoric towards people of faith will certainly impact her policies towards them. While she has yet to publish this as a policy objective, it is highly likely, given the incendiary rhetoric that Clinton has used towards Bible-believing Christians, that she would advocate for the elimination of the tax exempt status of non-profit organizations which use their religious beliefs on issues such as abortion, marriage, and sexuality as a basis for employment decisions and facilities use. Clinton is sure to impose penalties for people who choose to live out their moral and religious beliefs outside of the four walls of the church.


2. Marriage & Family

Hillary Clinton does not support natural marriage, and maintains a worldview which will eventually manifest itself through the complete destruction of the family. She praised the “tireless organizing of the LGBT community and their allies” in achieving a complete redefinition of marriage, calling the Supreme Court’s decision to force same-sex marriage on every state “a watershed moment for equality in America.”[xi]

The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), (S. 1598) is designed to protect those who maintain a moral or religious belief that marriage is or should be the union of one man and one woman, and that sexual relations should be reserved for such a marriage. FADA would prevent the federal government from discriminating against people because of their natural marriage views, but it will most certainly be vetoed if it reaches Clinton’s desk. Similarly, Clinton will work with Congress to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act (S. 1382) , which would essentially prohibit federally funded child welfare organizations, and those that contract with federally funded organizations, from preferring to place children in families with both a mother and a father. Clinton will increase taxes on middle class families,[xii] a promise consistent with her sponsorship of 169 bills increasing spending by a total of $124 billion during her term as senator. As president, Clinton would also provide tax credits and subsidized child care to ensure parents stay in the workforce.[xiii] Advised on her proposal by the far-left Center for American Progress, Clinton will offer no equivalent benefit for stay-at-home parents. Rather, she has committed to hiking the minimum wage to $15/hour—a financial burden to be borne largely by the middle class.

Additionally, as president, Clinton will bloat the Department of Education by ensuring continued use of the top-down, centralized Common Core State Standards, requiring universal pre-kindergarten, and eliminating school choice. A proponent of the “It takes a village” nanny state, Clinton has said, “I’ll tell you why I won’t support vouchers. Number one, I don’t think they’re constitutional. But number two, I don’t see how you would implement them without having a lot of people get vouchers for schools that would be teaching things antithetical to American values.”[xiv] Those “antithetical” teachings most often originate from private, religious schools.


3. Life – including Abortion & Bioethics

Clinton makes no bones about her unilateral and unflagging support for abortion, stating that Roe v. Wade “is the touchstone of our reproductive freedom, the embodiment of our most fundamental rights, and no one—no judge, no governor, no Senator, no President—has the right to take it away.”[xv] As the Democratic senator from New York in the 110th Congress, Clinton was a co-sponsor of S.1173, the Freedom of Choice Act, which would negate any laws or regulations that “interfere with” a woman’s so-called right to abortion. This bill goes even beyond Roe v. Wade in promoting abortion on demand. As First Lady, she supported Medicaid funding for abortion, and used the international stage to promote her pro-abortion agenda, remarking to the UN that the “government has no place in the personal decision a woman makes about whether to bring a child into the world.” As presidential nominee, Clinton has promised to:

  • [S]tand with Planned Parenthood and stop Republicans from defunding the organization, which would restrict millions of women’s access to … safe, legal abortion.
  • [R]epeal the Hyde amendment to ensure low-income women have access to safe reproductive health care.
  • [P]romote [comprehensive] sexual education across schools in America [and]
  • [F]ight to protect and build on President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which bans insurance companies from discriminating against women and guarantees more than 55 million women access to preventive care.”[xvi]

Clinton also plans to expand federal funding for embryo destructive stem cell research[xvii], and under Obama’s Affordable Care Act, shift to both a single-payer option[xviii] and strengthen its contraception mandate—leaving charities like Little Sisters of the Poor with massive penalties if they object to involvement in contraceptive health coverage.


4. National Security – including Terrorism, International Affairs & Military Readiness

Clinton has called for an increase of 550% in the number of Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. This represents an increase to 65,000 from Obama’s originally stated goal of 10,000. In order to meet his refugee target, Obama had to shorten the U.S. vetting timeline from 18 months to 3 months. Clinton’s own vetting schedule can only get shorter, ensuring would-be terrorists easy passage into the United States. Clinton also plans to cut military spending, trim the size of the already-strained U.S. Military, and expand the number of sanctuary cities nationwide. [xix]

Disturbingly, Clinton and her family foundation have inexplicable “ties to Islamist money—and openly named the dictator Hosni Mubarak as her ‘dear friend,’ Bashar Al-Assad a ‘reformer’, and then…seemed to have an affinity for Muslim Brotherhood leaders and its movements in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria.”[xx] In addition to questionable political ties, Clinton has vowed to “allow transgender personnel to serve openly” in the military,[xxi] destroying any vestige of troop morale and privacy left in sex-specific facilities, thereby continuing Obama’s legacy of social engineering over military readiness.

In 2011, Clinton was the architect of the Libyan combat operation that killed Gadhafi.[xxii] In so doing, she armed Islamic extremists and created a space in which terrorism took root,[xxiii] sending American combat troops into the country to do her bidding without congressional consultation. Her decision to do so was widely distrusted by others in the administration. The Washington Times reported:

U.S. intelligence did not support the story that Mrs. Clinton used to sell the war in Libya, mainly that there was an imminent danger of a genocide to be carried out by the Gadhafi regime. The intelligence community, in fact, had come to the opposite conclusion…the Pentagon and a key Democrat so distrusted Mrs. Clinton’s decision-making on Libya that they opened their own secret diplomatic conversations with the Gadhafi regime, going around the State Department.”[xxiv]

America has every reason to suspect Clinton will continue a national security pattern that shirks the congressional role. And, based on Clinton’s failed leadership on Benghazi, the possibility remains that every future military member or diplomat could expect the same lack of support during times of crisis. This presidential candidate can never be disassociated from her strident Senate testimony on Benghazi, in which she distanced herself from the attack on the consulate, shouting, “What difference does it make, now?”[xxv]

Appallingly, Clinton provided millions in equipment—including multiple F-16 aircrafts and 200 M-1 Abrams tanks—to the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.[xxvi] The aid package was executed after Morsi himself called President Obama a liar for supporting Israel, and proclaimed that Egyptian children “must be nursed” on hatred of the Jews. Clinton armed the enemy, yet again increasing the long-range threat to American and allied interests, including those of Israel. Clinton either lacks discernment on issues of national security, or is deliberately agitating nations with anti-American sentiment.

In a foolhardy display, Clinton traveled to Russia to “reset” American-Russian relations, a move that created the appearance of weakness before Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.[xxvii] Her trip accomplished nothing but the creation of greater friction between the U.S. and Russia[xxviii] as Putin exploits American weakness within his nation’s borders, and beyond.

And on international affairs, Hillary Clinton is not as strong of an advocate as human rights activists might think. She has a warped view of human rights that is distorted by LGBT agenda items, and thus she is unable to advocate for human rights for all—including protecting the freedom of religion which has been under deadly assault in multiple hot spots around the world. As Secretary of State, even Human Rights Watch claimed Hillary undermined “human rights” when en route to China she stated contentious issues such as human rights “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises.”[xxix]


5. Judicial Appointments

Liberal justices now control 70% of the 13 Federal Courts of Appeal thanks to President Obama’s 55 judicial appointments.[xxx] Should Clinton take the presidency, she will have the opportunity to appoint as many as 12 more liberal Federal Appellate Judges.[xxxi] In addition, there are 75 vacancies available to Clinton appointees in the U.S. District Courts.[xxxii] As noted by one judge, the judiciary may be the most fateful issue of this year’s election: Americans are “choosing not just a president but thousands of presidential appointees, including hundreds of life-tenured judges.”[xxxiii]

Perhaps more concerning is the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by Justice Antonin Scalia. Based on the age of the Justices, natural attrition may open up as many as three more seats, for a total of four vacancies left open to Clinton appointees. Clinton has reinforced the “danger” in electing a Republican president who will undo the pillars of the progressive movement by way of the Supreme Court.[xxxiv] As a U.S. Senator from New York, Clinton voted against the nomination of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court,[xxxv] and voted against other originalist judicial nominees to the federal bench such as Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,[xxxvi] Brett Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,[xxxvii] Dr. Leon Holmes to the federal district court in Arkansas,[xxxviii] and Judge Leslie Southwick to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.[xxxix] By ensuring all the federal courts track to the far left, Clinton would have unfettered opportunity to interpret law in a manner that fits her extreme agenda. With just one Supreme Court appointment, Clinton would guarantee the most liberal High Court of all time.


6. Sexuality – including LGBT & Transgender

Clinton’s extensive list of promises to the LGBTQ community comprise the biggest plank in her campaign platform. Her aggressive and lengthy assertions[xl] establish that in the first 100 days of her presidency, Americans can expect a fundamental overhaul on civil rights. Just a few of her promises include the following:

  • Passage of the federal Equality Act (H.R. 3185) – a sweeping amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes that would add “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes such as race, sex, national origin, and religion. The Equality Act would create special protections for individuals who identify as LGBT in multiple areas of law (including employment, housing, schools, public education, jury service, and public accommodations) and will require private entities (businesses, nonprofits, etc.) to affirm these new protected classes even if they have moral or religious objections.
  • Continuation and implementation of the Obama administration’s LGBT guidance, regulations, and executive orders. These include provisions that revoke the freedom of faith-based federal contractors to hire individuals who agree with their mission, provisions that allow biological and anatomical men to use the emergency housing shelters and public school and General Services Administration showers, changing rooms, and restrooms with girls and women based on their subjective gender identity, provisions that prohibit medical coverage from excluding gender transition from its covered procedures, and provisions that repeal a decades old policy that prevents people who identity as transgendered from serving in the military and receiving taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery.
  • Support of efforts in the courts and federal government to redefine “sex” so as to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” without the requirement of Congressional passage of an amendment to formally change the law. This includes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s inclusion of these categories under Title VII; the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inclusion of these categories under the Fair Housing Act; the Department of Education’s Title IX of the Civil Rights Act; and Section 1557 of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Affordable Care Act. Each defines sex in the biological sense of male and female.
  • Work toward passage of the Safe Schools Improvement Act (S. 311), which singles out “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (among other statuses) for special protection against harassment and bullying, while ignoring all other possible forms of bullying. The Safe Schools Improvement Act would also end sexual orientation conversion therapy for minors (even if both the minor and parent voluntarily consent),[xli] and push for passage of the Student Non-Discrimination Act (S. 439) to prohibit public school officials from “discriminating” against students on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
  • Contribution of $50 million to the Global Equality Fund to advance the rights of LGBT persons worldwide.[xlii] 


With Hillary Clinton at the helm, America would awake on November 9th to the promises of a more bloated and pervasive government, an expansion of coverage and funding for abortion, full support of the LGBT activist agenda, a feeble military, leftist federal courts, higher taxes, borders flooded with illegal immigrants, and the sunset of religious liberty. Clinton is willing to sacrifice any of the foundational elements of our American democratic republic on the altar of political correctness and moral flexibility. She has promised to take on the “right wing machine” and stand firm against Republicans in her quest to move America toward Alinsky’s radicalized ideal. This year as never before, abstention from the voting booth will have dire—and possibly permanent—consequences.

[i] “Hillary Clinton on Principles & Values,” OnTheIssues, accessed September 19, 2016,

[ii] Stephanie Condon, “Hillary Clinton: The vast, right-wing conspiracy is ‘even better funded’ now,” CBS News, February 3, 2016, accessed September 13, 2016,

[iii] Evan Halper, “Clinton makes a lot of promises — which can she keep?” Los Angeles Times, August 9, 2016, accessed September 13, 2016,

[iv] Roger Kimball, “Want to Understand Hillary Clinton? Read Saul Alinksy,” Washington Examiner, September 18, 2016, accessed September 27, 2016,

[v] “Hillary Clinton on Abortion,” OnTheIssues, accessed September 13, 2016,

[vi] Anne Gearan, “Is Hillary Clinton against the religious freedom law Bill Clinton backed?” The Washington Post, April 3, 2015, accessed September 19, 2016,

[vii] U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Releases Report: Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties,” press release, September 7, 2016,

[viii] “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties,” U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, September 2016, p. 39,

[ix] Dan Merica and Sophie Tatum, “Clinton expresses regret for saying ‘half’ of Trump supporters are ‘deplorables’,”, September 12, 2016, accessed September 19, 2016,

[x] Jason Howerton, “Hillary Clinton: ‘Deep-Seated Cultural Codes, Religious Beliefs…Have to Be Changed’,”, April 24, 2015, accessed September 27, 2016,

[xi] “Statement from Hillary Clinton on the Anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Decisions on Marriage Equality,”, accessed September 21, 2016,

[xii] Deroy Murdock, “Despite 18 1/2-Millisecond Gap, Hillary Still Favors Middle-Class Tax Hikes,” National Review, August 8, 2016, accessed September 19, 2016,

[xiii] Danielle Paquette, “The enormous ambition of Hillary Clinton’s child-care plan,” The Washington Post, May 12, 2016, accessed September 19, 2016,

[xiv] “Hillary Clinton on School Choice,” OnTheIssues, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xv] “On Roe v. Wade’s Anniversary, One Candidate Has Lifelong Record of Fighting for Women: Hillary Clinton,”, accessed September 19, 2016,

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] “Hillary Clinton on Abortion,” OnTheIssues, accessed September 19, 2016,

[xviii] Ben Wolfgang, “Hillary Clinton’s health plan to include a public option,” The Washington Times, July 10, 2016, accessed September 19, 2016,

[xix] “Hillary Clinton on Immigration,” OnTheIssues, accessed September 22, 2016,; see also: “Hillary Clinton on Homeland Security,”; and “Hillary Clinton on Immigration,”

[xx] Zudhi Jasser, “Clinton, Trump must promote freedom and human rights in election campaign,” Asia Times, September 1, 2016, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xxi] “Fighting for Full Equality for LGBT People,”, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xxii] Matthew Vadum, “Killing Qaddafi: Hillary’s Secret Role,”, February 4, 2015, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxiii] Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, “Secret Benghazi report reveals Hillary’s Libya war push armed al Qaeda-tied terrorists,” The Washington Times, February 1, 2015, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Daniel Halper, “Clinton Shouts: ‘What Difference … Does It Make?’” The Weekly Standard, January 23, 2013, accessed Sept. 25, 2016,…-does-it-make/article/697536.

[xxvi] Nick Meo, “US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi in historic first,” The Telegraph, July 14, 2012, accessed September 25, 2016,; See also: Maxim Lott, “U.S. gift of F-16 fighters headed to Egypt, despite Morsi’s harsh rhetoric,”, January 22, 2013, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxvii] Miriam Elder, “Vladimir Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of encouraging Russian protests,” The Guardian, December 8, 2011, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxviii] Danielle Ryan, “From bad to worse: Clinton laying foundation for increasingly hostile relations with Russia,”, August 28, 2016, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxix]US: Clinton Remarks Undermine Rights Reform in China,” Human Rights Watch, February 20, 2009, accessed September 25, 2016,

[xxx] Philip Wegmann, “How Liberal Judges Took Control of 70% of US Appeals Courts,” The Daily Signal, September 4, 2016, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xxxi] “Judicial Vacancies,” United States Courts, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xxxii] Ibid.

[xxxiii] Ibid, Wegmann.

[xxxiv] Hillary Clinton, “A Make or Break Moment for Supreme Court Appointments,” The Boston Globe, January 8, 2016, accessed September 13, 2016,

[xxxv]U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session,” United States Senate, accessed September 22, 2016,

[xxxvi]U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session,” United States Senate, accessed September 22, 2016,

[xxxvii]U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session,” United States Senate, accessed September 22, 2016,

[xxxviii]U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session,” United States Senate, accessed September 22, 2016,

[xxxix]U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session,” United States Senate, accessed September 22, 2016,

[xl] “Fighting for Full Equality for LGBT People,”

[xli]LGBT rights and equality,”, accessed September 28, 2016,

[xlii] “Fighting for Full Equality for LGBT People,”


Continue reading

FRC Action Blog blog_goto
Joe Biden's "Moral Fiber," or Lack Thereof, on Abortion
by Adelaide Holmes (May 1, 2020)


Instagram ig_follow