Category archives: Government

Historical Precedent Suggests That Trump Is on the Right Side of History

by Peter Sprigg

October 30, 2020

The closer we get to Election Day, the more intently many people are examining polls in an effort to determine the likely outcome of the presidential race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

On the one hand, Biden has held a consistent lead in the average of national polls on the website RealClearPolitics. The same website’s aggregation of state polls suggest a significant lead for Biden in the electoral college vote as well.

On the other hand, similar indicators four years ago pointed to a Hillary Clinton victory—yet in the end, she lost in the (decisive) electoral college, despite winning the popular vote. These comparisons are keeping Trump supporters hopeful, and Biden supporters on edge.

However, there is another way of predicting the outcome that has nothing to do with polls. Instead, it has to do with repeating patterns of history.

There is one such pattern that I have never seen anyone describe. It is this: since the 1951 ratification of the 22nd Amendment, which limited the president to a maximum of two terms, we have had an almost unbroken pattern of the two major parties, Republican and Democratic, alternating in their control of the White House every eight years.

After the first president, George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after serving two terms, subsequent presidents had followed that tradition. First elected in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt broke with that tradition when he sought, and won, a third term in 1940. He was then re-elected to a fourth term in 1944—but died shortly after it began, in 1945. The 22nd Amendment, introduced in 1947 and ratified by 1951, ensured that no future president would be able to maintain a similar hold on the office.

People of my (baby boom) generation have witnessed convulsive events such as the assassination of one president (Kennedy) and the resignation of another (Nixon), plus two who were impeached but not convicted (Clinton and Trump). During the period from 1968 to 1992, in a stretch of seven presidential elections, four of them featured an incumbent eligible for re-election who was not re-elected: Johnson (1968) chose not to run; Ford, who succeeded Nixon, was defeated (1976); as were Carter (1980) and George H. W. Bush (1992) in their reelection bids.  

Nevertheless, beginning with the Republican Eisenhower (serving 1953-61), Democrats Kennedy and Johnson (1961-69), and Republicans Nixon and Ford (1969-77), and ending with the more recent occupants of the White House Bill Clinton (1993-2001), George W. Bush (2001-2009), and Barack Obama (2009-2017), the eight-year cycle of party control has mostly held.

Since a Republican, President Trump, has currently occupied the White House for only four years, this pendulum swing pattern of history points toward his reelection, giving Republicans control of the White House until the 2024 election.

In the 64-year period from 1953-2017—16 four-year presidential terms—there has been only a single exception to this pattern of eight years in, eight years out, in terms of partisan control of the White House.

That exception was Republican Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Democrat Jimmy Carter’s bid for reelection in 1980, after only four (not eight) years of Democratic control of the White House.

The question, then, is—does 2020 resemble 1980?

There’s no question that 2020 has been an exceptional year. The coronavirus pandemic, and the unrest in American cities following the death of George Floyd (and other African Americans) as a result of police action will make this year go down in history. But what does that mean for the election?

Does incumbent President Donald Trump resemble Jimmy Carter? In personality, the soft-spoken Carter and the brash Trump could not be more different. However, both faced unique challenges that began with events no one could have predicted.

For Carter, it was the Iran hostage crisis. The seizure of American diplomats late in 1979, and their continued captivity throughout 1980, contributed to an impression of American impotence.

Do the continuing pandemic or racial unrest in 2020 make Donald Trump similarly vulnerable?

On the other hand, few observers, left or right, would question that Ronald Reagan was a unique political talent.

Does Joe Biden have similar gifts that would allow him to pull off a similarly historic win?

We will find out soon.

Liberals are fond of claiming that they stand on “the right side of history” (especially when they are on the wrong side of majority opinion). But regardless of polls, personalities, or policies, precedent suggests that Donald Trump’s reelection bid is on the right side of history in 2020.

The 2020 Election: A Letter to Young Conservatives

by Molly Carman

October 16, 2020

Dear young American conservatives,

I am a recent graduate from college who has only just begun my professional career, and like other young conservatives today, I have been restless as we approach the 2020 elections. Whether you will be a first-time voter in the election, are a recent college graduate, have started your first young professional job, have recently married, or are nearing 30, I invite you to consider your role and responsibility in the election this fall.

Many of you plan to do one of three things this election: vote for Trump because you actually believe he is the best option, vote for Biden because you don’t like Trump, or completely disengage and not vote because you are “conflicted” and feel like you are having to choose between the lesser of two evils. For some reason, passivity has become commendable and ignorance has been deemed bravery when it comes to politics this election season. However, we are fools if we truly believe that our inaction is more beneficial then our action.

When conflicted on whether or not to stand up against Hitler during World War II, Dietrich Bonhoeffer chose to take a stand because he was convicted that, “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” We have been given a stewardship and a trust with our vote as citizens of the United States of America. This is why Elizabeth Stanton in the suffrage movement and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the civil rights movement fought for the right to vote.

The United States of America is a constitutional republic, which means that power belongs to the people and they choose who is placed in positions of authority and government. As noted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper 22, “The fabric of the American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” It is not for authority to be passed down, but to be passed up.

Romans 13 is clear that ultimately, God is the one who places individuals in positions of authority. Because God places them in positions of authority, Paul commands everyone to, “be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (v.1). When we vote, we are giving our power into the hands of another and charging them to lead our nation under God. Citizens are to seek God’s wisdom and ask for discernment as we nominate, endorse, and vote for these roles.

Because we the people hold the power to elect various officials, we must steward our vote intentionally. We are not just voting for party, personality, or how presidential they look. When we vote, we should vote for policies and platforms that uphold justice, life, family, religious liberty, and representation of the people. Through my personal conversations and from observing social media behavior, it is clear that numerous young conservatives are choosing to become recalcitrant this fall. The attitude has become, “Lets bad mouth and crack jokes about the candidates and platforms.” In terms of actually participating in the political process, it has become popular to disengage—to make smart remarks but fail to engage in the civic duty of voting.

Do not get me wrong: elections can be frustrating, politics can be strenuous, and policies can be exasperating, but these emotions—though real—should not lead us to conclude that disengagement is the best response. When we make the choice to throw away our votes, we are choosing laziness over responsibility, passivity over action, naivety over wisdom, immaturity over courage, and selfishness over the republic.

I do not believe that it will be helpful to tell you stories of times when men and women decided last minute to vote and their candidate won by one point and this moment changed their whole perspective on voting. These stories have occurred, but this is not why we vote. We vote to preserve the values and virtues that our Founders fought and died for. The future of our nation is dependent on who you vote for, because for better or worse, they will be the sword bearers of power and the leaders of our nation.

America is the land of the free and the home of the brave because George Washington decided to leave his home at Mount Vernon and lead the fight in the Revolutionary War, because young men left their homes to fight on the beaches of Normandy, because Martin Luther King Jr. chose to reject inequality and fight for civil rights. You only have your vote today because of the blood, sweat, and tears shed to retain it. It is a slander on our nation, on your character, and to God when good men and women do nothing and squander our stewardship.

To vote or not to vote” is not the question. Voting is your duty! To consider more reasons why young conservatives, especially Christians, should be politically engaged, go to frc.org/engage.

Your fellow patriot,

Molly Carman

Election Polls in 2020: Deja Vu All Over Again?

by Matt Carpenter

October 13, 2020

With less than a month to go until election day, both President Trump and former Vice President Biden are campaigning to see who will fill the Oval Office for the next four years. From the moment the two earned their party’s nomination, public opinion polling has shown Biden leading President Trump both nationally and in most swing states. The RealClearPolitics (RCP) average of national polls currently has Biden with a 9.2 point lead, similar national polling aggregators FiveThirtyEight and CNN show Biden with an 8.4 point lead and 11 point lead, respectively.

With that said, it’s important for voters to recall some of the disasters in public polling from the 2016 race when then-candidate Donald Trump pulled off perhaps the greatest electoral surprise in American history, winning the electoral college 304 to 227.

Looking at just the polling data alone in this year’s presidential election, you could swap out “Biden” with “Clinton” and you would see a very similar race to 2016. In fact, a recent CNN poll shows the former Vice President up 16 points on President Trump nationally. Interestingly enough, CNN released a similar poll at around the same time 2016 showing Hillary Clinton up on Donald Trump by 12 points—and we all know who won in 2016. The stunning collapse of the public polling industry in 2016, and the confidence in which they projected Clinton’s inevitable win, leave voters this year skeptical of the same prognosticators and pundits who failed to call the 2016 election correctly.

Voter registration data can inform us on existing trends in the swing states that will likely determine the election. It’s one thing to answer a poll on the phone, or online, and simply state your intentions to vote—it’s another thing to see how voters are actually behaving.

Among the most coveted swing states this year are Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Each of these states report partisan registration data. A recent article from CBS News took a closer look at voter registration trends since 2016 and shows some interesting numbers. What does the voter registration data in these key swing states tell us?

In Florida, Republicans have outpaced Democrats in new voter registrations by about 183,000 new voters. Florida is the quintessential swing state. Diverse demographically, economically, culturally, and politically, small moves in the electorate can have huge ramifications for both state and federal elections. In 2018, Ron DeSantis won his race for governor by just 30,000 votes and Rick Scott unseated longtime incumbent Senator Bill Nelson by just 10,000 votes.

Pennsylvania also shows some interesting numbers of newly registered voters since 2016. Since 2016, when Donald Trump became the first GOP presidential candidate to win the Keystone State since Reagan in 1988, Pennsylvania Republicans have grown their ranks by 3.7 percent, while Pennsylvania Democrats have actually lost 1.5 percent of their share of the electorate. Just looking at voter registration numbers since June of 2020 shows a startling contrast: 135,619 new GOP voters registered in the state to the Democrats’ 57,985.

Of these three swing states, none show more promise for the president’s reelection hopes than North Carolina, where the number of registered Democrats has tumbled more than 6 percent since 2016, and GOP voter registrations have grown by almost 3.5 percent. In 2016, President Trump won North Carolina by 173,315 votes, or 3.6 percent. A shrinking pool of voters for Biden to pull from will undoubtedly make his task of improving on Clinton’s performance there in 2016 difficult.

Next, let’s look at two of the rust belt states that were reliably Democrat for decades and flipped to the GOP in 2016: Wisconsin and Michigan. Neither of these states register voters by party affiliation, so it’s hard to tell exactly how the major parties are faring. But both Michigan and Wisconsin make information on voter registration numbers by county available. Looking at changes in voter registration numbers at the county level and how each county performed in the last presidential election can give us a good picture of how each area of the state will vote in this year’s election.

Let’s start with Wisconsin—a state where then-candidate Donald Trump won 60 counties to Hillary Clinton’s 12. Since November 2016, the total number of voters in Wisconsin has dropped by more than 31,000. If we look only at the 60 counties Trump won in 2016, we see those counties actually gained more than 2,900 voters—a modest number in and of itself, but significant in that it bucked the statewide trend. When we turn our attention to the 12 counties Clinton won, we see a net loss of more than 36,000 voters. The bluest areas of the state are hemorrhaging voters.

In the electoral-vote-rich state of Michigan, Trump won 75 counties to Clinton’s 8. Michigan has seen its voter rolls grow by more than 400,000 voters since November 2016. Since then, the 75 counties that went for Trump reported an increase in over 245,000 new voters to the Clinton counties’ 155,000. Put another way, 61 percent of new voter registrations in Michigan are attributable to counties of the state where President Trump won, compared to just 38 percent from areas Clinton won.

Both Wisconsin and Michigan were decided by less than 1 percent. Wisconsin was decided by 22,748 votes, or 0.82 percent; Michigan was decided by a mere 10,704 votes, or 0.24 percent. Every vote matters, and with less voters in deep blue counties, we have to assume Biden will need to do far better than Clinton did in areas Trump won. Conversely, with more voters in areas Trump won, the president will be able to add to his column in these counties.

In each of the swing states we’ve discussed, Democrats still retain an advantage in overall voter registration. In North Carolina, that edge is around 400,000 voters; in Florida, the Democrat advantage is 183,000 voters; and in Pennsylvania, the Democrat edge is 717,000 voters. But the trend lines are clear: more new voters are opting to register as GOP or are registering in areas that lean heavily GOP.

It is also worth noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has not left the voter registration game unscathed. In fact, as colleges and universities remain shuttered in response to the virus, voter registration numbers in college towns have plummeted. This will lessen the impact deep blue college towns have on swing states as tens of thousands of out-of-state students who would otherwise be able to register to vote in the swing states mentioned earlier are forced to vote in their home state—which may or may not be competitive this year.

In closing, voters should be wary of reading too much into public opinion polls, and instead should look at other data. We’ve looked at how voter registration rolls in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have changed. In states that allow partisan voter registration (Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina), we have seen a clear increase in GOP voter registration numbers since the last time Donald Trump was on the ballot, and in some cases, we’ve seen the total number of Democrats actually decrease since 2016. In the two other states we looked at (Michigan and Wisconsin) that do not register voters by party affiliation, we looked at the county-level data and saw that areas where Donald Trump won in 2016 reported larger increases in voter registration numbers, while deep-blue areas where Clinton ran up the score either reported lesser numbers of new voters or even lost voters since 2016.

The last time Donald Trump was on the ballot, the odds looked to be stacked against him. Many national and swing state polling showed his path to 270 electoral votes to be practically nonexistent. Trump won in 2016 by pulling blue collar voters into his coalition and remaking American politics. While it is possible the pollsters have gotten their act together this year and are now telling us the actual state of the race, it is also just as likely they are making the same mistakes that undercounted the president’s base and failed to accurately predict turnout. The available voter registration data seems to be telling us that Trump’s base has actually grown since 2016, and this election will come down to who turns out to vote.

How 2020 State Elections Will Shape the Makeup of Congress for the Next Decade

by Steven Sullivan , Connor Semelsberger

October 8, 2020

With several major companies launching advertising campaigns to “get out and vote,” political parties describing this election as the deciding factor in our country’s future and survival, and politics seeping into daily conversation more than ever, its clear that voting in the 2020 election matters now more than ever. With such high stakes, it is easy to focus solely on the presidential or U.S. Senate races, but did you know that in a census year like this, state elections are just as important?

The U.S. Constitution requires that a census be conducted every 10 years, and the information from the census is used to determine the distribution of U.S. House seats across the states for the next 10-year period. The first step in this process, known as reapportionment, is to divide the 435 Congressional seats among the 50 states based on population. The president determines the amount of seats for each state based on the population numbers from the census and sends a notice to Congress. Congress then communicates the exact number of representatives for each state to the governors. Once the governors are given their total number of seats, the state is responsible for drawing the boundaries of the Congressional districts, a process known as redistricting. Once the districts are drawn and submitted to Congress, the new make-up of Congressional districts will be in effect starting in 2022.

In most states, the legislatures draw the congressional district boundaries which then are approved by the governor. Because the states have so much control over the boundaries, it has become a very political process in which both parties jockey to have partisan control of state legislatures and governors mansions during redistricting in order to draw the boundaries in a way that favors their respective party. What this means is the 2020 state elections not only impact who will represent you in the state legislature but will also have a huge impact on who will represent you and your values in Congress for the next decade!

Between reapportionment and redistricting, there is great chance for a dramatic shift in political power. As our country’s population has shifted from northern and midwestern states like New York and Illinois to states in the south like Texas and Florida, so does the number of congressional seats and the power that comes with it. There are also several large states with close partisan margins that, if flipped, could dramatically change which party is in the driver’s seat for drawing the new congressional lines. Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas are not only battleground states for the presidential election, but also have one or both state legislative chambers that are within 10 seats of changing partisan control.

Among all the noise of the 2020 election, the important role that state governments play in setting up the power dynamics of the U.S. House of Representatives has been vastly overshadowed. As you consider who to vote for in the upcoming election, remember the importance of the down ballot races and gather appropriate information to make sure you support state candidates that reflect a biblical worldview. And as always, remember to pray, vote, and stand.

Connor Semelsberger, MPP is the Legislative Assistant at Family Research Council.

Steven Sullivan is a Policy and Government Affairs intern focusing on federal legislative affairs.

A True Blue Congress

by Worth Loving

March 14, 2019

Without a doubt, life, family, and religious freedom are under an unprecedented all-out assault in our nation. Many left-leaning states are following New York’s lead and further undermining the right to life. Others are embracing various aspects of the radical transgender agenda by forcing it on schools, businesses, and non-profit organizations. And, the fundamental building block of any successful society—the family—is under vicious attack from all fronts.

Despite that reality, Congress is actually more pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious freedom than ever before. Each year, FRC Action releases our congressional scorecard, grading members of Congress on how they vote on a number of bills, nominations, and resolutions related to our core issues of faith, family, and freedom. Members who score 100 percent are named our “True Blue” members and invited to receive an award at our annual reception on Capitol Hill. Our most recent scorecard included votes on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, judicial nominees, and Planned Parenthood, among others.

This year, we set a record for the most True Blue members of Congress ever. A record 276 members of the House and the Senate received a True Blue award for their 100 percent rating on our congressional scorecard. That’s over half of Congress that stands 100 percent for life, family, and religious freedom! On February 28, many of these members joined us at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, D.C. for our annual True Blue reception. Each member had the chance to receive an award and speak with our president, Tony Perkins. FRC Action staff also had the opportunity to talk to each member and thank them for standing with us on the foundational values of life, family, and religious freedom.

At a time when life, family, and religious freedom are being ferociously attacked, it’s refreshing to see so many members of Congress who are 100 percent committed to standing with us and fighting every day for the unborn, the family, and the persecuted. This is further evidence that our election efforts each year are paying off! Check out our scorecard to see if your members of Congress support faith, family, and freedom. If not, contact them and tell them to start standing for our shared values right away. Also, check out our Twitter page to see what our True Blue members had to say about the work of FRC Action and about standing for life, family, and religious liberty at such an important time in our nation’s history.

John James’ Faith-Driven Message After U.S. Senate Loss

by James Selvey

November 29, 2018

When John James took the stage following his U.S. Senate loss in Michigan, he presented it as not as a sign of complete disappointment, but as a new chapter in his life. James is not looking for someone or something to blame for losing the election. Instead, he spoke to his supporters about what they already have achieved and what building blocks they have constructed for the future of Michigan and the U.S. Here are several key takeaways that he laid out in his concession speech on election night.

First, John saw his campaign not as a guaranteed path to victory, but as a challenge from God to step out in faith and obedience and take a stand for others. As the results were turning in favor of his opponent Debbie Stabenow, John was already looking at the accomplishments made throughout his run. “We won tonight…because we were tested. We were tested and rose to the occasion and the Lord asked us to step out of the boat. And we stepped out of the boat. And we said, Lord if you call me, I will come. And that’s what we did.”  

Second, John talked about the importance of keeping loved ones close and encouraging his supporters to keep fighting for the institution of the family. His wife Elizabeth and his two sons joined him on stage to promote the welfare and institution of families across Michigan. “This is what sustains me and kept me going. This is why we’re not done. Because too many families out there don’t have the ability to live the lives we do…We still need to look out for our families. We still need to break the shackles of dependency that keep so many bolted to their situations right now. We still need to make sure we’re doing things the right way.”

With a spirit of humility and joy, John spoke of serving God through taking action not centered on temporary benefits, but for the eternal rewards in God’s kingdom. “A passion for service doesn’t end with a poll, it doesn’t end with a vote, it ends in the grave… My priority is making investments in things that no one can take away from you. Because our reward is in heaven. And we recognize that we have to love everyone, and work with anyone to serve everyone.” He further stated that “anybody can give glory to God when the times are good, but you know we’re still supposed to glorify Him in defeat.”

No matter what the outcome, John understood that God’s plans reach beyond the current moment: “He has a bigger plan than what we can understand. And I’ll tell you what, His plan is perfect. And we’re not done. And He’s not done. And you shouldn’t be done.” After thanking his supporters, John promised that “I’m not going anywhere. This is just the beginning … we have the ability to not just elect our leaders but to be our leaders.”

As John’s speech suggests, Christians should not only worship God in victory, but also worship Him in times of defeat. John understands that he has the ability to help serve and raise up those who have little. He knows that his political career is not defined by just one election. He’s using what he has learned and accomplished during his Senate run to prepare for bigger plans that God may have in store.

Watch John James’ full concession speech.

Women From Across The U.S. Travel to Washington To Pray For Kavanaugh

by John Reid

October 5, 2018

WASHINGTON - More than 100 women traveled to Washington, D.C. from across the United States to pray for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Ford, and the Senate as they voted on cloture today.

The prayer event was organized by Concerned Women for America, who has also launched a “#womenforkavanaugh” campaign in support of his nomination to the United States Supreme Court. CWA chose today’s date for the prayer event as the Senate voted 51-49 in a motion to invoke cloture, thus ceasing all debate and advancing Kavanaugh to the full Senate floor for confirmation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that he will hold the confirmation vote on Saturday, October 6th.

President and CEO of CWA Penny Nance led the crowd in a prayer outside Senator Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) office, praying for wisdom, courage, and unity among the political parties. Grassley is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who voted 11-10 last week to advance Kavanaugh to a full Senate confirmation vote.

Following the prayer, the group of women, joined by a small group of men, split into smaller groups to visit the offices of senators who voted for cloture and to thank them for supporting Kavanaugh. The group was particularly enthusiastic to visit the offices of senators who were on the fence about voting for Kavanaugh but reluctantly agreed to vote “yea.”

These four major swing votes in question were from Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Manchin, the only Democrat among the four and the only Senate Democrat who ended up voting “yea” on the cloture, received a packed office full of grateful supporters and angry opposers. Capitol Hill Police were called to respond to the crowd after they repeatedly ignored a staffer’s demands to be civil. No arrests were made at the time. Senator Murkowski was the only Republican to vote “nay.”

Janae Stracke, National Field Director for CWA, told FRC Action that the way Democrats are treating Kavanaugh will carry adverse ramifications for them in the upcoming mid-terms.

They are thinking about their sons, their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, they don’t like that our country could be heading in a direction where you’re guilty until proven innocent. That’s not America and people are standing up against it. So, I think it will show in the midterms.”

Stracke was clear to show that CWA also has great concern for victims of sexual assault, even alluding to sexual crimes against women who have worked in her organization and her friends.

We understand where these people are coming from and the hurt that comes from that. And we want there to be justice for sexual assault survivors. And we want there to be justice. But pinning this on an innocent man is not justice. If there was ever evidence that he did assault doctor Ford, we would be the first to step back our support of him. But the fact is that there is absolutely no corroboration to her story.”

ICE: Unsung Heroes or Anti-Immigrant?

by Emily Weatherholt

July 11, 2018

Founded in 2003, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a subsection of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). ICE was formed as a result of the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which was passed in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attack in an effort to prevent such a tragedy from ever occurring again. Many would argue this policy has been successful, as many subsequent terrorist attacks have been thwarted by DHS, have been smaller in scope, or have been perpetrated by lone-wolf terrorists who were U.S. citizens and not illegal immigrants.

Recently, ICE has come under protest in light of their actions at the U.S. border with Mexico. Under President Trump’s immigration ban, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Trump v. Hawaii, America’s borders are closed to identified countries struggling with social unrest and the rising of terrorist regimes. This ban is not a “Muslim ban,” as many on the Left have called it, but a proactive move by the president to protect America’s borders, while the immigration policy is reworked to ensure American lives are protected. ICE, a government funded agency, is required to follow the executive orders of the president and the ruling of the Supreme Court.

Those who are protesting ICE are berating men and women who have committed to protecting our borders and following the higher decrees of our nation’s leaders at the risk of their own lives. ICE was created not only to enforce border control, but also to prevent human trafficking, smuggling of illegal goods across our border, and to prevent terrorism. Throughout the years, ICE has created alternatives for detention programs, created apps to help prevent child exploitation on the internet and track children that have been abducted by sex trafficking rings, and broken up complex smuggling operations by drug cartels within U.S. borders. In 2017, a group of protestors, assuming ICE was exporting immigrants, demonstrated against ICE while they were arresting a sex-trafficking ring in California.  

The current protest against ICE is based on the separation of families at the Texas-Mexico border. While the media is focusing on the separation of families and the injustice this is causing, the media is neglecting to share the reason for the separation. The separation is due to the president’s enforcement of the “zero-tolerance policy” at the border. This policy requires that those who cross the border illegally are subject to criminal charges. While waiting for prosecution for the criminal charges, the parents are placed in prison, certainly no place for children. That is why the families are separated until the children can be sent to relatives or shelters. It’s important to note that family separation occurred under the Obama presidency as well, a fact often ignored by the mainstream media. The practice of separating children from incarcerated parents is common procedure in American law. If a minor’s parents are sent to prison for a criminal offense, then the minor is placed with a relative or in the foster care system. There are also cases when human trafficking rings will pose as families to get the children across the border. In addition, drug rings use children to smuggle drugs over the border because they are less likely to be detained. This is what is happening at the border, but it’s certainly not the story that is being told. The same practice was occurring under previous presidencies, but to a lesser extent, as the president has the right to choose which laws he strictly enforces.

At the border, ICE is responding to possible drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other criminal offenses. ICE is following the laws enforced by the president and the Supreme Court of the U.S. ICE already has an extremely difficult job—the protests of the people whom ICE agents swore to protect are needlessly making their jobs more difficult. Those who are protesting ICE need to realize that when proactive actions are taken, it is hard to measure their success, as the wreckage from the adverted disaster is never felt. 

Record High 245 Members of Congress Score 100 percent on FRC Action’s New Scorecard

by FRC Action

January 30, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Family Research Council (FRC) Action released its scorecard today for the First Session of the 115th Congress. A record number — 245 Members of Congress — scored a perfect 100 percent for votes cast last year. Next month, FRC Action will honor these 245 Members with its “True Blue” award for displaying unwavering commitment and consistent support of faith, family, and freedom.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

It is very encouraging that a record number of Members of Congress have achieved a perfect pro-life, pro-family voting record in the year following President Trump’s inauguration. It is evident that the positive and productive focus on values issues in this Congress is due both to the 2016 election and the Trump administration’s emphasis on the planks of the GOP’s conservative platform. As a result, we now see Congress following the will of the American people when it comes to pro-life and pro-family issues.

We thank these Members of Congress for consistently voting to defend and advance faith, family and freedom. These ‘True Blue Members’ have voted to repeal and replace Obamacare, deliver long-needed tax cuts that are already providing much needed relief to working families, stand for religious liberty, overturn Obama’s transgender military policy, end the forced partnership between taxpayers and Planned Parenthood, and protect pain capable babies.

Americans should be encouraged to know that they have so many Members of Congress and a president who have begun the work of rebuilding our nation, and protecting the very values that made America great,” concluded Perkins.

Votes in the U.S. House and Senate included:

• No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

• Disapproval of Obama’s HHS Title X Rule

• Obamacare Repeal and Replace

• Confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court

DOD Transgender Funding (Blocking Funding for Sex-Reassignment Surgeries)

D.C. Budget Autonomy

D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment

• Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act

• Independent Payment Advisory Board Repeal

• Confirmation of Amy Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

• Tax Cuts & Jobs Act

Click here to download a copy of the Vote Scorecard.

New Va. Transgender Delegate Heads to Castro District, Smiles on Drag Party

by Cathy Ruse

December 20, 2017

On the campaign trail, Danica Roem said transgender politics had nothing to do with the Roem campaign. Political observers called that bunk.

Now, a month after winning a seat in the Va. House of Delegates, Roem was off to the notorious San Francisco Castro district.

In a glowing review of the “Drop Trou” event on December 10, the San Francisco Gate described hundreds of men stripped down to their underwear, some in drag and G-strings, gathered for a street party to raise money for an AIDS foundation.

The publication hailed newly-elected Va. Delegate Danica Roem as an “out-of-town celebrity” and reported that Roem “smiled” on the scene and said: “To be able to walk on a street and know you’re safe — there is a certain freedom of expression that comes with that.”

Roem was in town for a speaking engagement and “a fundraiser near the underwear-clad crowd” according to the story.

The Manassas School Board has invited Roem to visit students in its schools.

Don’t bring photos of your recent trip, Delegate.

FRC Action Blog blog_goto
Conservative Values Won Big Across America, Except in Contested Swing States
by Connor Semelsberger (Nov. 20, 2020)

...

Instagram ig_follow