The Latest

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

Republican Nominee Donald Trump’s Remarks at VVS 2016

by FRCA Media Office

September 9, 2016

Family Research Council

11th Annual Values Voter Summit

Remarks by Donald J. Trump


Donald J. Trump,

2016 Republican Nominee for President

Location: Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C.

Time: 3:40 p.m. EDT

Date: Friday, September 9, 2016

Transcript By

Superior Transcriptions LLC

(Cheers, applause.)

DONALD J. TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, Jon. Jon is such a great actor and such a great person. He is such a great person. And he’s really been with me a long time in a lot of different ways. He’s been incredible. So I just want to thank Jon. And I hope he makes another movie very quickly, because I love his movies. (Laughter.)

In particular, I wanted to thank our host, Tony Perkins, for his years of leadership. (Applause.) And we know all about that. And we all express our support for Tony as he deals with the aftermath of the terrible floods in Louisiana, where two weeks ago I spent some time, and I saw some incredible, incredible people.


MR. TRUMP: Thank you. (Applause.) Amazing, amazing group.

One of the greatest privileges of my journey has been the time I’ve spent with the evangelical community. And the support they gave me in those primaries was absolutely incredible, I have to tell you. (Applause.) All across the nation. A lot of people said: I wonder if Donald will get the evangelicals. I got the evangelicals. (Cheers, applause.) I’m going to make it up to you too, you watch. There are no more decent, devoted, or selfless people than our Christians brothers and sisters here in the United States. (Applause.)

Continue reading

Trump Visit to Louisiana May Be Seen as the Turning Point in the 2016 Presidential Election

by Chris Gacek

August 24, 2016

Because Tony Perkins, the President of Family Research Council, had his house flooded in one of the largest natural disasters to ever hit the state of Louisiana, we on the staff have paid very close attention to this event. We all know the Perkins family and feel great sorrow for their loss.

Unfortunately, the NYC-based media still show little interest in what happened there—with a few notable exceptions like Sean Hannity—even though 100,000 homes have been damaged with many thousands of people now living in shelters.

Thus it was fascinating to see Donald Trump’s newly restructured campaign pivot quickly last Friday to tour the Louisiana disaster area. Mr. Trump and Mike Pence visited the relief center established by Samaritan’s Purse at Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, the church where Tony Perkins is now serving as the interim pastor. Franklin Graham, the head of Samaritan’s Purse, as also there. It was a perfect visit that raised the nation’s awareness of this human tragedy and the need for donations and volunteers. Donald Trump made no political comments while there.

I watched cable news, and the story was barely covered. The channels preferred to talk about campaign-insider nonsense. Finally, after Trump left, one network carried a short story with footage—nothing live. The coverage was totally inadequate to the seriousness of the situation in Louisiana. However, that was the way the story was treated across the board. Who cares about a fly-over country flood, I guess?

I wondered if I was the only person in America who saw what was happening, and the adept way Trump had responded to the crisis. Apparently the White House finally did, as President Obama was moved to grudgingly schedule a visit to Louisiana on Tuesday—after his vacation was over, we were told. The president toured Louisiana, and we can only hope that his visit will bring additional donations and volunteers to the relief charities working in the affected areas. But, frankly, it seems that his visit was something the president is being forced to do, like after-school detention hall homework. While Mr. Obama did show the flag, his efforts seemed pretty “low energy” and unlikely to inspire much reaction.

Hillary Clinton’s unresponsiveness has been even worse than President Obama’s nonchalance. It has bordered on a poorly disguised contempt for the state. She’s very busy fundraising, gathering in millions in the coastal elite enclaves like Beverly Hills where she attended a number of high-end fund-raisers including one at the house of Disney’s president. The governor of Louisiana said she called him with well wishes and her “logistical” reasons for not coming. That is so little personal support as to be insulting.

Looking back on these events, my thoughts return to an image from the movies. If you have never watched Rocky (you should), take a look at this clip about the underdog fighting the over-confident champ. This is the scene where Rocky goes to the meat refrigerator to pound the sides of frozen beef for a local TV news spot. It’s a classic movie scene. The champ, Apollo Creed, is more focused on his barber being in Philly than on his opponent. Big mistake, as his trainer tries to tell him. Someone should tell Mrs. Clinton that she’s in for a real fight.

Well, perhaps I am not crazy. Even a poorly covered story can make waves. And the LA Times tracking poll of 3,000 voters shows Trump now basically even with Mrs. Clinton. Of course there is the usual polling margin for error, not “likely” voters, etc. We all know that, but this poll had Trump down 4.7% on August 14th. This result may be a bit of an outlier, but the trend clearly was not. The nation sees what is happening.

With all that said, if Donald Trump wins this election, I think historians will point to a critical visit to flood-ravaged Louisiana as its turning point.

Continue reading

A Vote for Hillary Clinton is a Vote for Abortion

by Arina Grossu

August 9, 2016

Post Image

Blogger Rachel Held Evans is disingenuous when she states that you can vote for Hillary Clinton and still be “pro-life.” This is simply not true. While we don’t know exactly what we’re getting with Donald Trump, we surely know what we’re getting with Hillary Clinton. It should not only raise red flags but also sound loud sirens that both Planned Parenthood and NARAL are heavily endorsing Clinton. Back in January Planned Parenthood announced that it was endorsing Clinton and dropping at least $20 million this election cycle, saying:

We’re proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. No other candidate in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong commitment to women or such a clear record on behalf of women’s health and rights.”

Planned Parenthood has shown time and time again that its interests as an organization are primarily financial. The abortion industry makes a huge profit from selling abortions and baby body parts, while receiving over $500 million in taxpayer funding annually. Planned Parenthood and Hillary Clinton are two peas in a pod.

The Democratic platform itself lines right up with Clinton in codifying her progressively aggressive abortion stance: both have now embraced repealing the Hyde Amendment and forcing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. The Republican platform, on the other hand, is pro-life, solid, and conservative. There is a night and day difference between these two.

Held Evans also claims that outlawing abortion won’t necessarily reduce abortions. That’s incorrect, based on inflated and ideologically-driven data provided by the abortion lobby. Further, studies have shown that access to contraceptives may actually increase teen pregnancy. Abstinence education, on the other hand, actually works. More abstinence means fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions.

Being pro-life is being pro-women and their children, before birth and after. You can’t be pro-life if you support the intentional killing of innocent human life, in the womb or outside it. Voting for someone who does support the intentional killing of vulnerable, unborn humans is as anti-life as it gets. Hillary’s words speak for themselves on where she stands on abortion: “I believe we need to protect access to safe and legal abortion, not just in principle, but in practice.”

In a democratic society we have the unique privilege of voting in accordance with our beliefs and values. By supporting pro-abortion candidates, we not only compromise our values, but also support the killing of unborn baby humans.

Sure, there are other values that are pro-human dignity that we should want in our candidates. But let’s keep in mind that the most fundamental of these rights is the right to life. We cannot exercise other rights without first being able to exercise our right to life and to ensure that every single person’s right to life is protected and defended, not only by our Congress and our laws, but by our next president. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for abortion. If she is elected president, she is going to do everything in her power to push the most radical pro-abortion agenda that the U.S. has ever seen, most notably by her nomination of pro-abortion Supreme Court justices and support for Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby’s destructive agendas. The lives of millions of unborn babies are at stake. Don’t be duped.

For more reactions to her inflammatory blog post, see these commentaries at the Federalist and National Review.

Continue reading

A Comparison of the Democrat and Republican Platforms

by Andrew Guernsey

July 25, 2016

Last week, the Republican Party ratified its 2016 platform that includes key socially conservative planks on life, marriage, and religious liberty, which FRC Action, in tandem with our partner delegates, helped to improve from the 2012 platform. This week, the Democrats approved their platform, which swings them even farther to the extreme left on their radical social agenda.

While platforms are non-binding documents, research shows they matter—significantly. One study found that in the past 30 years, Republicans in Congress voted for positions supported by their party platform 89 percent of the time, while Democrats did so at a rate of 74 percent. If Republicans and Democrats in Congress make good on their party platforms’ promises, people of faith heading to the polls in November can be confident that Republicans will defend life, marriage, and religious liberty, while Democrats will continue to put those same values under direct assault.

The difference between the two parties’ platforms could not be clearer on values issues. Here are some concrete instances:



On the Redefinition of Marriage

Democrats support the Court’s judicial activism in Obergefell “that recognized LGBT people … have the right to marry the person they love.”

Republicans, on the other hand, “condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor … [and] Obergefell v. Hodges, which … robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. To echo Scalia, we dissent.” Republicans “urge its [Obergefell’s] reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.”

On Supporting Marriage and Family

The Democrats look to government and “social support services,” not marriage and family as the foundation of American society. Without mentioning the family or natural marriage, Democrats “are committed to creating a society where children … can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually … [through] civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child.”

The Republicans, on the other hand, affirm that “the American family … is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman.” The platform affirms the numerous benefits of natural marriage to human flourishing, and supported by overwhelming evidence from social science, concludes that “every child deserves a married mom and dad.” Republicans believe that “strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives,” and conversely, “the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government.” The Platform also discourages cohabitation and calls for “marriage penalties to be removed from the tax code and public assistance programs.”



On Pro-Life Laws

The Democrats say they “will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion … We believe unequivocally that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.”

The 2016 Republican Platform is arguably the most pro-life platform in the history of the Republican Party. It states in unequivocal terms that “the Democratic Party is extreme on abortion … Because of their opposition to simple abortion clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old Clinton mantra of ‘safe, legal, and rare’ has been reduced to just ‘legal.’ We are proud to be the party that protects human life and offers real solutions for women.”

The Platform applauds the U.S House for passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, declaring, “We strongly oppose infanticide.” It also supports a human life amendment to the Constitution, abortion clinic regulations, federal and state bans on abortions at 20 weeks, when pre-born babies can feel pain, bans on abortions based on sex or disability, and bans on “the cruelest forms of abortion, especially dismemberment abortion procedures, in which unborn babies are literally torn apart limb from limb.” It calls for a ban on human cloning and the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research, and also applauds Congress for banning research involving three parent embryos.

On the Hyde Amendment

For the first time in history, the Democrats and their nominee, Hillary Clinton, call for “repealing the Hyde Amendment” to allow the government to fund abortion on demand.

On the Hyde Amendment, the Republicans oppose the Democrats’ extremism directly: “As Democrats abandon this four decade-old bipartisan consensus, we call for codification of the Hyde Amendment and its application across the government, including Obamacare.” Republicans also “will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.”

On Planned Parenthood and the Selling of Baby Body Parts

The Democrats support taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood by name: “We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people.”

The Republicans, for the first time, denounce Planned Parenthood by name for committing abortions, selling baby parts, and deceiving women with faulty fetal harvesting consent forms: “We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.” It calls on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts.



The Democrats promise to “appoint judges who defend the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, protect a woman’s right to safe and legal abortion … and see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress.”

The Republicans “support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.” Such appointments would “enable courts to begin to reverse the long line of activist decisions—including Roe, Obergefell, and the Obamacare cases—that have usurped Congress’s and states’ lawmaking authority, undermined constitutional protections, expanded the power of the judiciary at the expense of the people and their elected representatives, and stripped the people of their power to govern themselves.”


On Recognizing God in Government

Short of mentioning “God-given potential,” which elicited boos and controversy at the 2012 Democratic Convention, the Democratic Platform includes no direct reference to God. The Democrat platforms speak frequently of rights, but only as they come from government, never as coming first from God. They give lip service to religion—that “our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires.” But there is one major exception—the Democrats only support a “progressive vision of religious freedom” that “rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate” on LGBT issues—such as the millions of Christians who support natural marriage.

The Republican Platform affirms that God is central to American government, society and our way of life, saying: “every time we sing, ‘God Bless America,’ we are asking for help. We ask for divine help that our country can fulfill its promise.” The Platform affirms what the Declaration of Independence sets forth: “That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail.” As Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, the Republican platform affirms that God, not the government, is the final authority, even above human laws, and sets the highest law we must follow. In light of this fact, Republicans “support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

On Religious Freedom on Abortion

The Democrats’ radical push for abortion makes no exception even for religious organizations or conscience protections for doctors or nurses who object to abortion. The Platform pledges to “defend the ACA … including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in health care based on gender.” This alludes to the Obama administration’s contraception/abortifacient mandates against Christian businesses like Hobby Lobby and religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, and HHS’ redefinition of “sex discrimination” in Obamacare to include abortion and possibly sex change operations.

The Republicans, on the other hand, insist on protecting “the rights of conscience of healthcare professionals, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and organizations, especially the faith-based groups.” This includes “the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral, or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty” and “the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.”

On Religious Freedom on Marriage

The Democrats call to “end discrimination on the basis of … gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,” etc. and they promise to “fight for comprehensive federal non-discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans, to guarantee equal rights in areas such as housing, employment, public accommodations, credit, jury service, education, and federal funding.” Democrats claim that without these special LGBT protections, “a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home.” Continuing their undermining of religious freedom, Democrats insist that they only “support a progressive vision of religious freedom that respects pluralism and rejects the misuse of religion to discriminate.”

The Republicans calls for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act, “which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman,” and it sides with the rights of florists, photographers, bakers, and especially adoption agencies who do not wish to violate their consciences or religious beliefs by supporting same-sex marriage. Republicans oppose the Democrats’ “effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square” and “strongly support the freedom of Americans to act in accordance with their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their everyday lives.” Republicans support “the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage.”



On Transgender Bathrooms in Schools

Following the Obama administration’s redefinition of sex discrimination in Title IX, the Democrats “will fight for the continued development of sex discrimination law to cover LGBT people.” They pledge to “improve school climates” to advance gay and transgender rights, claiming in defense that “LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school.” They specify creating “federal non-discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans … in areas such as … education.”

Republicans call out the Obama administration’s Title IX transgender bathroom edict, which “impose[s] a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories,” as “at once illegal, dangerous, and ignores privacy issues.” The GOP Platform denounces the liberal social agenda, which is “determined to reshape our schools—and our entire society—to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions.”

On Teaching the Bible in Public Schools

The Democrats insist on promoting “high-quality STEM classes,” “computer science education,” and to “engage students to be critical thinkers and civic participants.” Yet Democrats also insist on banning prayer from the public sphere even in our public schools.

Recognizing that “a good understanding of the Bible [is] indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry,” the Republicans encourage, on a voluntary basis, for “state legislatures to offer the Bible in a literature curriculum as an elective in America’s high schools.” The Platform also “affirm[s] the rights of religious students to engage in voluntary prayer at public school events and to have equal access to school facilities.”

On Common Core and School Choice

In their platform, the Democrats “believe that a strong public education system is an anchor of our democracy” for “all children.” “Democrats are also committed to … high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth.” They offer no support for families, even poor ones, who want private or faith-based schooling for their children.

The GOP Platform promises Republicans will “fight for school choice” and “local control of our schools.” It recognizes that “parents” not the government, “are a child’s first and foremost educators, and have primary responsibility for the education of their children.” Therefore Republicans support “home-schooling … private or parochial schools … Education savings accounts (ESAs), vouchers, and tuition tax credits.” Republicans also favor “implementing alternatives to Common Core, and congratulate the states which have successfully repealed it.”

On Sexual Education

The Democrats promote what they wrongly call comprehensive or “evidence-based sex education,” which, in fact, encourages young children and teens to use contraception and engage in risky sexual behavior. Even though the federal government funds condom-based approaches to sex education 16 to 1 compared to Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) education, since 1991 the percent of high school students who have never had sex has increased 28%. The reason is largely due to SRA and the fact that parents and teenagers largely support waiting until marriage to have sex.

Recognizing the success of SRA, the Republicans call for “sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach—the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease—empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes. ”



On the Obama Administration’s International Abortion and Homosexual Rights Agenda

The Democrats “will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe” including repealing “the ‘global gag rule’ [ie. the Mexico City Policy] and the Helms Amendment that bars U.S. assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world.” They also “will promote LGBT human rights and ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world … including combating efforts by any nation to infringe on LGBT rights or ignore abuse.”

The GOP Platform opposes the federal government funding abortion overseas, and it calls for restoring the Mexico City Policy, to prevent federal money from going to NGOs like Planned Parenthood or the U.N. population fund, which “provide or promote abortion,” or are complicit in “China’s barbaric program of forced abortion.” It condemns the Obama administration for “impos[ing] on foreign recipients, especially the peoples of Africa, its own radical social agenda while excluding faith-based groups.”

On Genocide of Christians in the Middle-East

The Democrats say, “We are horrified by ISIS’ genocide of Christians and Yezidis and crimes against humanity against Muslims and others in the Middle East. We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom to worship and believe.”

The Republicans complain that Obama’s “State Department has, belatedly, labeled genocide” the killing of Christians in the Middle East. It continues: “At a time when China has renewed its destruction of churches, Christian home-schooling parents are jailed in parts of Europe, and even Canada threatens pastors for their preaching, a Republican administration will return the advocacy of religious liberty to a central place in its diplomacy, will quickly designate the systematic killing of religious and ethnic minorities a genocide, and will work with the leaders of other nations to condemn and combat genocidal acts.”

On Terrorism

In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, the Democrats singled out the LGBT community in response to violence for special protections: “Democrats believe that LGBT rights are human rights and that American foreign policy should advance the ability of all persons to live with dignity, security, and respect regardless of who they are or who they love.” And they insist “we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence,” and that “we will protect transgender individuals from violence.”

The Republicans also oppose any violence on all people, but without dividing victims into identity groups, instead naming the enemy, “radical Islam”: “Radical Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat to personal freedom and peace around the world. We oppose its brutal assault on all human beings, all of whom have inherent dignity. The Republican Party stands united with all victims of terrorism and will fight at home and abroad to destroy terrorist organizations and protect the lives and fundamental liberties of all people.”



On Social Engineering in the Military

The Democrats cheer the “repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and claim without evidence that “our military is strongest” when it includes “people of all … sexual orientations and gender identities,” including transgender people, ie. those with gender dysphoria.

The GOP Platform insists, on the contrary, “We reject the use of the military as a Platform for social experimentation and will not accept or continue attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness. We believe that our nation is most secure when the president and the administration prioritize readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda. Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.”

On Women in the Military

Democrats claim “our military should be the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force in the world” yet Democrats in Congress want to force women to have to register for the draft. Democrats also want to “make certain that the VA provides … women with full and equal treatment, including reproductive health services” which includes abortion.

The Republican Platform opposes “compulsory national service and Selective Service registration of women for a possible future draft.” It also “reiterate[s] our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” Republicans in Congress have repeatedly sought to protect our military hospitals from being turned into abortion clinics.

On the Religious Freedom of Chaplains

Democrats emphasize “we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence” and claim that “our military is strongest when people of all … sexual orientations, and gender identities are honored.”

In light of “attempts by the Obama Administration to censure and silence … particularly Christians and Christian chaplains,” Republicans “support the rights of conscience of … and will protect the religious freedom of all military members, especially chaplains, and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. A Republican commander-in chief will also encourage education regarding the religious liberties of military personnel under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the current National Defense Authorization Act.”

Continue reading

President Hillary Clinton Would Mean the End of American Exceptionalism

by Ken Blackwell

July 11, 2016

America always has been an exceptional nation. People in other countries recognize that America is unique. It’s why so many of those fleeing foreign oppression come to the “land of the free.”

What made the U.S. great were its principles, not its officials. America was different from most other nations. It was committed to limited government and individual liberty, alien concepts in most countries. The U.S. attempted to restrain government abuse through the separation of powers, another unusual idea, especially at a time of absolute monarchs.

Federalism protected different levels of community. Not every dispute was decided at the national level.

Ronald Reagan famously noted that, “the more government we can keep at the local level, in local hands, the better off we are and the more freedom we will have ….”

Justice was to be equal for all. Being rich, important, influential, or a celebrity wasn’t supposed to matter before the bar of justice.

In recent years, however, America has begun increasingly to look like other nations. Not because the American people are any less exceptional. But because their leaders don’t believe that America is.

In fact, the Obama presidency could be defined by its concerted campaign to knock the U.S. off its pedestal. Barack Obama and those around him do not believe in what traditionally was called “American exceptionalism.” Every country thinks it is exceptional, he once explained. The U.S. isn’t any different.

Certainly it won’t be if he has his way. His administration has attacked every principle that set America apart. For President Obama, government is unlimited — with individual liberty only at Washington’s sufferance.

The federal government now decides which health insurance policies we must buy and from whom. New rules prevent employees from choosing greater flexibility and freedom at work. High taxes and regulations on Americans living abroad are causing an increasing number of them to simply give up their citizenship.

Separation of powers requires that law enforcement remain independent of executive control, and both Congress and the judiciary resist excessive executive authority, especially actions that are unlawful or unconstitutional. For this administration, however, ignoring the law is standard operating procedure.

The president even has promised to target our constitutionally protected gun rights through executive orders. Yet these days, our legislators and judges are likely to roll over and play dead when the president abuses his powers.

Federalism means little when the national authorities seek to impose their will on every American, no matter how personal the issue. Who should use what bathroom in a local school district? Uncle Sam will decide!


Then there is equal justice.

Most Americans have had an abiding faith that they will be treated based on what they deserve, not on what they can afford. Yet Washington usually takes care of its own.

The Left gets aroused when, say, a businessman takes advantage of the system. But they turn a blind eye when it comes to one of their own. Like presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton.

FBI Director James Comey laid out the facts that made a strong case for prosecution. Secretary Clinton dissembled shamelessly, endangered American national security, and clearly violated the law. If any mistakes were made, she said, they weren’t intentional. Imagine being prosecuted for murder and explaining that you really didn’t intend to hurt anyone. Most judges and juries would be less than impressed. But nothing was normal in this case.

What we know now is that the law is unequal. This administration routinely jails Americans who mishandle classified material. Blogger Jeff Dunetz pointed out that among those charged with crimes were the celebrated Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, as well as lesser known John Kiriakou, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, and Jeffrey Sterling. Also prosecuted but escaping jail time was accused leaker Thomas Drake.

All claimed to be acting in service of a higher good, yet all were convicted under the Espionage Act. Even national security figures Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were prosecuted, though they got off with probation. (As befits Washington, the latter has reestablished his status as a D.C. bigwig.)

The bigger you are, contrary to the adage, the less likely you are to fall. A potential president, like Hillary Clinton, merely gets verbal a slap on the wrist. Certainly no prosecution, let alone jail time. After all, she was just “careless.” Why hold her accountable for her actions?

Imagine what her presidency would be like. After nearly eight years of the current occupant we need to send in political fumigators to prevent American liberties from being overrun by officious bureaucrats. Give Hillary Clinton eight years in office and we’re not likely to recognize the American political system.

Once, America rescued banana republics from abusive governments. Today America is becoming one — without benefit of the bananas!

Our nation is and remains exceptional. But the American people must act decisively to keep it that way. We are running out of time.

Continue reading

Blackwell: Corporate Clinton

by FRCA Media Office

June 28, 2016

Why are many big business leaders backing Hillary Clinton for president? See the piece by Ken Blackwell, Senior Fellow for Human Rights and Constitutional Governance at Family Research Council Action, recently published on

Corporate Clinton

Many leaders of big business support Hillary Clinton. Last week she announced a list of 56 corporate backers. No wonder Bernie Sanders is still running against her.

Hillary Clinton always has attracted well-connected business supporters. Even before she ran for office. Remember the lucrative cattle trades when she was Arkansas first lady? That came from a local businessman who knew how important it was to have friends in the governor’s mansion.

Click here to read more.

Continue reading

FRC Action Blog blog_goto
The Stark Contrast on Abortion at the National Conventions - In Quotes
by David Closson (Sept. 1, 2020)


Instagram ig_follow