All Posts By

Mario Diaz, Esq.

Don’t Miss Justice Thomas’ Important Contribution to Masterpiece Cakeshop

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

CWA’s General Counsel Mario Diaz with Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas was part of the 7-2 majority that recently held the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Jack Phillips’ First Amendment constitutional rights of free expression in the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. The Commission sought to punish Jack, because he refused to use his artistic talents, in violation of his religious beliefs, to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The majority held appropriately. But the Court did not address Jack’s second claim that the Commission’s actions violated his freedom of speech, as similarly guaranteed by the First Amendment. That claim is likely to come back before the Court at a later date in a similar case, and Justice Thomas does the legal community a great service by taking the issue head-on and giving some valuable guidance.

The Court of Appeals had concluded that Jack’s custom baking of a wedding cake, “was not expressive and was not protected speech.” It said that Jack’s conduct was not “expressive,” and that he could potentially post a disclaimer advising people he was just complying with the law. Justice Thomas disagrees on both counts.

He rightly points out that the appellate court’s reasoning, “flouts bedrock principles of our free-speech jurisprudence and would justify virtually any law that compels individuals to speak.”

He’s exactly right. If our ability to say a disclaimer is all that was needed for a law to survive a constitutional challenge, then virtually no law would ever violate the constitution. A simple disclaimer would always vindicate it.

Supreme Court precedent is on Justice Thomas’ side. “[O]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide ‘what not to say,’” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 573 (1995).  The Court has been clear that generally, the state “may not compel affirmance of a belief with which the speaker disagrees,” Id. Further, “this general rule, that the speaker has the right to tailor the speech, applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid,” (Id, emphasis mine). This principle is extremely important, because Jack and millions of Americans actually dispute a fact in this case, whether a wedding is taking place at all. That, too, is protected speech under the First Amendment. In Justice Thomas’ words:

Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated — the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] fact[s],” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] … a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573.

With that principle afresh in our minds, Justice Thomas argues compellingly that the action involved in this case, designing and making custom wedding cakes, is expressive. It is not hard to see why. The whole reason clients come to Jack for their wedding cakes is that he is an artist who creates beautiful, innovative, meaningful wedding cakes.

The Colorado Court of Appeals’ ultimate conclusion is puzzling because it actually agreed that “a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage,” depending on its “design” and whether it has “written inscription.” Yet, no such distinction is made when the state goes on to compel Jack.  In other words, if some designs are expressive, then he should only be compelled to make non-expressive designs.  I hope it is plain how ridiculous this distinction is in practice. Do we really want to establish, “The Great Judicial Baking Show” in our courtrooms, where judges will be in charge of deciding which custom-made wedding cakes are expressive enough and which are not?

The dissent realizes that and, therefore, abandons the Court of Appeals’ reasoning, instead putting the burden on Jack to show that his conduct is expressive. But they reject that any such evidence can be produced anyway. Justice Thomas, for his part, notices no such proof has been required in the past and, of course, there is more than enough evidence to make a determination here.  The dissent is simply interested in a particular outcome, and it works backward to fit the facts into that narrative.

Justice Thomas, on the other hand, goes through the evidence and meticulously applies the appropriate Supreme Court precedent. Even the recent decision that created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage supports Jack’s claim here.

Nor does the fact that this Court has now decided Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), somehow diminish Phillips’ right to free speech. “It is one thing … to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share [that view] as bigoted” and unentitled to express a different view.

This is the question we will continue to face going forward, and Justice Thomas’ work, in this case, is invaluable to those of us who are working to protect liberty and freedom. “[I]n future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing Obergefell from being used to ‘stamp out every vestige of dissent’ and ‘vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.’” We would do well to heed Justice Thomas’ advice.

Minnesota’s Political Apparel Ban “Incapable of Reasoned Application”

By | Legal, Minnesota, News and Events | No Comments

The United States Supreme Court released today its decision in an important First Amendment case coming from the state of Minnesota, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. In an emphatic 7-2 opinion, the Court declared unconstitutional an ambiguous law that banned “political” apparel at polling places on Election Day.

Not having defined what exactly the law means by “political,” the interpretation and application were left to various election judges at the polls. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rightly pointed out that these judges, “must be guided by objective, workable standards.” “Without them,” he said, “an election judge’s own politics may shape his views on what counts as ‘political.’”

His point was clearly illustrated at oral arguments when the state’s attorney’s arbitrary determinations were put to the test.  As the Chief Justice recounts:

A shirt declaring “All Lives Matter,” we are told, could be “perceived” as political. How about a shirt bearing the name of the National Rifle Association? Definitely out. That said, a shirt displaying a rainbow flag could be worn “unless there was an issue on the ballot” that “related somehow … to gay rights.” A shirt simply displaying the text of the Second Amendment? Prohibited. But a shirt with the text of the First Amendment? “It would be allowed.” (Citations omitted)

In this specific case, the state banned buttons that read “Please I.D. Me,” even though the voter I.D. issue was not on the ballot. The state relied only on the fact that some candidates apparently had addressed the issue at some point.  To grant such broad latitude on the state’s ability to infringe on our First Amendment rights should be troubling to anyone, regardless of political philosophy.

Chief Justice Roberts asked keenly, “Would a ‘Support Our Troops’ shirt be banned, if one of the candidates or parties had expressed a view on military funding or aid for veterans? What about a ‘#MeToo’ shirt, referencing the movement to increase awareness of sexual harassment and assault?”

He concluded, “A rule whose fair enforcement requires an election judge to maintain a mental index of the platforms and positions of every candidate and party on the ballot is not reasonable.”

And reasonableness was the fundamental question for the Court as it considered the law’s constitutionality. Supreme Court precedent had already determined that polling places are non-public forums for First Amendment considerations. The Court has recognized that historically (See Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992)), states have a considerable, even a compelling interest, in keeping voters in polling places safe and free from harassment as they undertake the solemn civic duty of casting their individual, private votes. The government, therefore, has much more flexibility in limiting speech in such specific areas.

Most states, in fact, have laws that prohibit electioneering within certain limits of voting places.  The Court has upheld them in the past. But in such instances, the law must be “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” (Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense, 473 U.S. 788, 806). In the case of polling places, the purpose is peaceful voting.

Minnesota’s law was not reasonable in light of that purpose.

The Chief Justice again: “[T]he State must be able to articulate some sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out. Here, the unmoored use of the term ‘political’ in Minnesota law, combined with haphazard interpretations … cause Minnesota’s restriction to fail even this forgiving test.”

The majority (Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan) show great wisdom and discipline in this decision, ensuring that states tread lightly when they set out to impose burdens on our constitutional rights. This law was an open invitation for political abuse and manipulation, and the people of Minnesota deserve much better.

Decisive Victory for Religious Freedom at the U.S. Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop

By | Defense of Family, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Anti-religious liberty forces lost at the U.S. Supreme Court today in the case of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who sought to live his life in accordance with his faith and so refused to provide a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex wedding (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission). This is why you will hear a lot of talk in the media of a narrow decision with little precedential impact. Some aim to downplay what is an important victory for freedom and religious liberty with the Court ruling 7-2 in favor of protecting the baker’s First Amendment constitutional rights.

The Court wrote, “[R]eligious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. It is notable for the Court to recognize that there are actually philosophical reasons, not just religious ones, to oppose same-sex marriage. Regardless, all are protected views under the First Amendment.

Click here to read the rest of this op-ed at

Click here for our press release: “Conservative Women Celebrate Freedom as the U.S. Supreme Court Decides Masterpiece Cakeshop.”

Check out our CEO & President Penny Nance’s statement in front of the Court at oral arguments:

And, some clips from our rally:

Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

On Smartphones, It’s About You

By | Defense of Family, LBB, Legal, News and Events | No Comments

Controversies are not uncommon to Facebook. This is why I usually don’t pay too much attention to them. But a friend made me notice the school teacher who posted what some of her students told her on a school assignment, and it is so sad it is worth noting. Did you see it?

The teacher posted that several students told her they wished the phone was never invented because their parents were always on them. The story was noted by USA Today, which quoted one response agreeing with it saying, “I don’t like the phone because my [parents] are on their phone every day … I hate my mom’s phone and I wish she never had one.”

The story noted how the topic of smartphone use has been mostly aimed at children and teens, and appropriately so, but this incident points to concerns with adult use. Several studies have shown that the more time children spend online, the less happy they are with their lives in several areas.  But the truth is that this is not only about what they see online, but about the interactions and experiences they are losing in the real world by spending so much time in the virtual world.

The more time a child spends online at home, the less time he spends interacting with siblings or his or her parents. This works both ways, though.  The more time a parent spends online, the less time he spends investing in the crucial personal relationships at home.

So, on the use of smartphones at home, it’s about you, whatever your age.  Parent, grandparent, child, brother, sister, whoever you are. Sure, parents should limit their children’s time online, but they must also limit their own.

The interesting thing is that, once we spend some time thinking about this issue, we realize that it is not such a new issue after all.  It is still about quality time with each other — the age-old problem that has plagued parents from time immemorial. The only thing that has changed is where we are spending the time. Parents use to take time away from their children by working too much or playing golf all the time. Now they spend it on social media. Still, it is about time, in many ways.

The new danger, I see, is that you are “there” in the case of the new smartphone problem.  But, of course, if you are “there” with someone on your phone, you are not really “there.” I think we all can understand that.  There is no question we must be proactive on this for our children and for ourselves. I think most people would agree. How to do that is a bit more complicated, but I tend to think that as long as you are aware of the potential risk and you are doing something, even if it is something that doesn’t work, you are working at it, and it will be a net positive for you. We will find the right approach for our family if we are intentional about it.

But why are we discussing this here at Concerned Women for America? Well, I hope you see that the answer to many of the public policy problems that ail us are rooted in the weakening of the family structure. I’ve written to you about it in many contexts.

The family unit was God’s invention (Genesis 2:24). One man, one woman having children for life. This beautiful cycle where a man “leave[s] his father and mother and hold[s] fast to his wife, and the two … become one flesh” (Ephesians 5:31) is powerful and life-giving; it is the key to a free and fruitful society. It is no surprise to any of us that the enemy seeks to destroy it with everything it has.

So, let’s not let the smartphones outsmart us. Let us use it, and not the other way around. It is an incredible tool, when used in moderation, giving priority to those things that are truly valuable. God and family should always be at the top.

Should We Embrace a Libertarian Conservatism?

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

The degree to which government should be involved in moral choices has been a topic of debate through history. Though conservatives advocate for small government, they distinguish themselves from libertarians (broadly speaking) in the realization that government is involved in moral choices, whether it wants to be or not, because moral issues are part of human nature. Even choosing not to intervene in a particular area is a moral choice with great societal implications.

Given this fact, instead of stepping back from the “controversial” topics of our day, as some suggest, conservatives should vigorously engage in those conversations at every level, debating and persuading others (and, therefore, government) to serve the public in positive ways.

Conservatives generally distrust government, not because it is this big, bad “thing” that is completely separate from “We the People.” Our distrust of government is because government is “We the People.”  And people, we know from personal experience (because we know ourselves), are ultimately not trustworthy. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick,” wrote the prophet Jeremiah long ago. James Madison also noticed it, writing in Federalist No. 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

This is why conservatives need to reject the modern push for libertarianism on moral issues. It is troubling to hear great thinkers like Ben Shapiro, for example, seemingly advocate for acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda and drug legalization as part of a new, libertarian “live-and-let-live” approach to entice young conservatives to join the freedom movement. “Young conservatives may not care about same-sex marriage, but they’re deeply pro-life and pro-gun,” he wrote for the Weekly Standard.

All this means is that young conservatives are wrong about some issues and right about others. Reality exposes this sort of self-serving libertarianism.  When Shapiro turns to talk about President Donald Trump’s behavior, young conservatives all of a sudden are not so libertarian about the president’s personal morality. And they shouldn’t be.

They’re right to deem as morally reprehensible certain behaviors that are, in fact, morally reprehensible. But they’re wrong to abandon other moral issues just to avoid being called a “bigot” by the Left.

“But the libertarians are with us on fiscal and economic issues,” we are told.  Well, not really.  The survival or not of the family unit (including marriage) has enormous economic implications. Without strong families, no society can resist the further moral breakdown that liberals use to justify an ever-encroaching state.  You want small government? Stop undermining the family.

The pressure on young people in a libertine culture to abandon sexual morality is immense.  They will most certainly experience enormous personal temptation.  However, even here there is moral truth — right and wrong — regardless of personal, physical, or emotional struggles and/or desires.  One of the great lies of the Left is defining people by their inclinations and temptations instead of as moral beings created in the image of God.

The conservative approach to the human internal struggle is not to “accept who you are,” and “live and let live.”  That “Feels-so-good-it-can’t-be-wrong” attitude of the 60’s brought too much pain for us to ignore it. It is a false, bankrupt, liberal concept that leads to destruction and death.

The proper response to this internal struggle is to fight. Fight against the urge to steal and lie. Fight against the urge to abandon your family for personal pleasure. Fight against the urge to be sexually promiscuous.  Fight against the urge to be slothful and indulgent. Fight to be better than you are — to live up to all that is good and righteous.  Thomas à Kempis wrote beautifully about this struggle in The Imitation of Christ.  He said, “[T]o fight against evil thoughts which attack you is a sign of virtue and great merit.”

Notice the fight itself is virtuous, not victory. We all fail, and that’s the point. That is where love and grace in spite of our failures come in. It’s where humility comes in. Still, we should aspire to a virtuous life.

We’ve mostly lost that word “virtue” today, though it is essential for freedom. Young conservatives must come to the realization that freedom comes from a great deal of personal restraint and from fighting against the evil desires within us. Government should support and not hinder that. And yes, that means a great deal of societal pressure on your “private conduct.”

The way to freedom is through the pathway of truth.  Liberalism has and will fail because it ignores truth. To embrace a similar approach for convenience’s sake will serve conservatives no better. The next generation of conservatives must grapple with that reality.  The relationship between freedom and truth is non-negotiable. To embrace one is to embrace the other and vice versa.

For America (Day 93) – A Prayer for Israel

By | News and Events, Prayer | No Comments

foramericaprayerjournalFather in heaven,
We never forget You are the Great “I Am,”
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
The Alpha and Omega, First and Last.

Remember Your people, Oh God!
Remember Your promises and Your covenants.
Forgive us for ignoring Your Word
And rejecting Your gifts.

Turn our hearts towards You, once again,
And deliver us from the evil one.
Be merciful and graceful towards us
As we repent of our many sins.

Remember Israel — remember Jerusalem;
We pray for peace and fruitfulness for the land.
We pray for the never-ending conflict to end,
That your people may return to worship You once again.

Open the eyes of the blind, Lord;
Give them ears to hear.
May miracles flourish to Your Glory
That the world may know only You are God.

Let the songs of the Lord be heard in Jerusalem;
Let all who hear rejoice in the strength of the Lord.
May Jerusalem’s enemies stumble;
May their plans for destruction come to nothing.

We pray for the leaders of Israel.
May they seek You and allow Your Word
To be their guiding manual,
For You have promised wisdom freely to those who seek it.

We know you won’t forsake Your people;
You are the King of Kings!
You bring the counsel of nations to nothing.
Only Your purposes remain.

To this, we say, “Amen, may it be so!”
For in You is found all wisdom and love,
You know the end from the beginning,
And Your Word abides forever.

Bless Jerusalem,
Bless Israel,
And continue to bless the United States of America,

Click here for more prayers from our For America Prayer Journal.

Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

Time for Boy Scout Nostalgia to Die (Along with the Organization)

By | Legal, News and Events | No Comments

I was a Boy Scout. This was an organization that helped me be more confident in my manhood by focusing on the values that make men honorable and productive citizens.  One of the main features of the program was that the sort of tension and role-play pressures that come along with trying to impress girls was completely removed. Every other group I participated in included those, so this made the Boy Scouts of America a special place.

My story is not uncommon.  The “I was a Boy Scout” line is heard often here in the nation’s capital and around the country.  It is why the Boy Scouts of America has been able to endure as an organization until now, despite its colossal mismanagement for decades. This “Boy Scout nostalgia” is real and not unmerited, but it is time we acknowledge we are no longer referring to the same group.

The Boy Scouts of America as an organization is dead. It has been for a while now, even though they are now finally making it official with the recent announcement that they are dropping the word “boy” from their name. And, now that the name is changed, it is time to let go.

Every move the organization makes leaves a stench that is hard to avoid. Even the inclusion of girls a while back and the dropping of the name smell offensive from every angle.  Forget about the fact that they are losing the very essence of the Boy Scouts and affirming everything that is wrong with the immoral sexual compass of the day.  The worst part is that nothing is done as the result of the strong convictions that defined the organization from the beginning.

It seems they are simply trying to survive by stealing the recruits from the Girls Scouts, American Heritage Girls, and other girl scouting groups.

Never forget that the Boy Scouts of America was plagued with sexual abuse claims that required them to pay millions of dollars to victims. They are still trying to stem the tide of that debacle. The Washington Post reports the Boy Scouts have hired lobbyists to prevent more lawsuits.

After going through this ordeal, you would think the last thing the Boy Scouts of America needs is to expand the pool of potential victims by introducing girls into their troops.  But the fact is they need more money while facing these lawsuits at a time when the membership is in stark decline.

News that the Mormon Church will sever ties with the program will only accelerate its decline.  This is not something the church or the parents wanted to do. I have experienced it with many friends and with my own kids.  Boy Scout nostalgia is very strong.  But slowly, many are realizing that the best thing for their kids is to join an organization like Trail Life USA, which operates from strong conviction, is dedicated completely to its members, and is free from the horrid baggage that has the Boy Scouts of America (or Scouts BSA as they’d like to be known now) stuck in the mud of political correctness and scandal.

At a time when they should be focused even more on protecting and serving the boys they are developing, the Scouts BSA or whatever they call themselves, are abandoning that focused task and extending themselves beyond what they already had shown they could not properly do.

They should take a look at how dedicated the American Heritage Girls leadership is to their members.  Here is what Executive Director Patti Garibay said in response to the Boy Scouts news:

American Heritage Girls equips girls with a space made specifically for them with their physical, mental, social, spiritual, and emotional needs in mind. Studies show girls lose confidence in themselves 3.5 times faster than boys their age in the time between elementary and high school. By participating in programs created around their specific needs in a space where they are the sole focus, girls are able to grow in confidence and thrive in a healthy and sustainable way. Why would we take this opportunity away from our girls by lumping them into a boy-focused experience? For convenience? Our girls deserve more.

That’s the sort of focused dedication our children need, both male and female. It is why we need to let go of our nostalgia and recognize our Boy Scouts organization no longer exists.

Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

For America (Day 92) – A prayer for our leaders

By | News and Events, Prayer | No Comments

foramericaprayerjournalTo You, Oh Lord, we lift our voice
In prayer and supplication (with thanksgiving)
Knowing that the very air we breathe
Comes from Your command.

In You alone we trust.
We lean not on our own understanding.
Indeed, may we be counted fools
Before we ignore Your loving counsel.

We pray for our leaders, Oh God.
Be merciful and graceful to us;
Give them wisdom and knowledge
Beyond human presumptions.

Surround them with Godly counsel.
May their ears and hearts always lean towards righteousness.
We pray for their protection and for the protection of their families.
Let not Your Word be ever beyond their reach.

Let them hold on to truth,
While chaos looms around.
Let them, like David, seek repentance where needed,
And may their life reflect the beauty of Your love.

We praise You, O Lord, Whose wisdom is beyond human understanding.
You chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;
You chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
You chose what is low and despised in the world to bring honor to Your name.

So, may our leaders boast in their weaknesses,
Knowing it is by Your grace they can serve their people.
To him whom much is given, much is required;
May they tend to their role with sobriety and devotion.

Help us, the people, to be a help to them.
Help us to be a constant reminder of what is truly important,
To hold them accountable, as we encourage them
In all that is good and just and right.

We know, O God, that many dangers lurk in our world;
They multiply and grow more complex each day.
Yet, You are our refuge and strength;
Your renown endures through all generations.

Therefore, we do not fear;
Though the earth gives way and the mountains be moved into the sea;
Though the hills be shaken and the waters roar;
We trust in the name of the Lord our God.

In Whose name we pray,

Click here for more prayers from our For America Prayer Journal.

Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative

By | LBB, News and Events, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Penny Nance, CWA’s CEO & President, with United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback at the Rose Garden.

President Donald Trump has taken several steps to protect religious freedom within the Executive Branch during his time in office. On the National Day of Prayer, in his second year in office, he once again showed his commitment to people of faith by signing an executive order establishing the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative.

This is no small thing, though we have seen similar efforts in the past.  The attacks on religious freedom — and freedom of speech in general — are ongoing, and a proactive approach to protect these rights is desperately needed.

President Trump announced the initiative at a Rose Garden event attended by Concerned Women for America CEO and President Penny Nance, saying:

The faith initiative will help design new policies that recognize the vital role of faith in our families, our communities, and our great country.  This office will also help ensure that faith-based organizations have equal access to government funding and the equal right to exercise their deeply held beliefs.

We take this step because we know that, in solving the many, many problems and our great challenges, faith is more powerful than government, and nothing is more powerful than God.

He is absolutely right. One of the sad things about modern government hostility towards religious groups is the fact that they are negatively affecting these groups’ great, charitable, loving work. Remember the attacks on the Little Sisters of the Poor? Why would the government want to hinder in any way the work of these poor, religious women who are caring for the elderly in our nation? Or how about the state governments that have forced out of their state Christian adoption agencies? These are services that are needed, yet as government intolerance of differing views, especially in the area of sexuality, continues to grow, we see many are willing to let the poor and needy suffer at the altar of liberalism.

It was fitting that in announcing this initiative and commemorating the National Day of Prayer, President Trump remembered the loss of “America’s Pastor,” Rev. Billy Graham.  He said:

As we gather this morning, our thoughts also turn to the memory of a man who awakened the light of God in the hearts of millions of America’s pastors.  And that’s the great, legendary, wonderful Billy Graham.  Great, great man …

Today, we remember the words of Reverend Graham, “Prayer is the key that opens [to] us the treasures of God’s mercies and blessings.”  Always beautiful.

As you know, prayer is foundational for Concerned Women for America. Everything we do is done not in our own power, but by the strength and opportunity given to us by God Almighty. It is a reality that we know to be true personally and can attest to throughout our great history. That is why we continually remind our culture of America’s rich history of faith and prayer. President Trump is fully aware of that history.  More importantly, he is very proud of it.  At the Rose Garden ceremony, he said:

The prayers of religious believers helped gain our independence, and the prayers of religious leaders like the Reverend Martin Luther King — great man — helped win the long struggle for civil rights.  Faith has shaped our families, and it’s shaped our communities.  It’s inspired our commitment to charity and our defense of liberty.  And faith has forged the identity and the destiny of this great nation that we all love.

Americans of faith have built the hospitals that care for our sick, the homes that tend to our elderly, and the charities that house the orphaned, and they minister — and they really do, they minister to the poor, and so beautifully and with such love.

We are proud of our religious heritage.  And as President, I will always protect religious liberty.

This is our identity as American, whether many or few recognize it. It is the genius of our nation and the key to liberty and freedom.


Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

For America (Day 91) – A Prayer for Alfie

By | Prayer | No Comments


When all hope in human skill disappears,
And the learned proclaim with their sneers:
“Miracles don’t exist, that’s clear!”
We, the “foolish ones,” know You hear.

So, we stoutly ask Your intervention,
By the breathtaking power of Your resurrection,
Against this horrid government contravention
That, like Pilate, seeks to kill by abstention.

Let Your love be ever-present for Alfie and his family.
May his life and story be, by grace, a mighty homily
Of the omnipotence, wisdom, sovereignty, and majesty
Of He Who created Alfie, and Charlie, and all humanity.

Sustain little Alfie by Your mighty right hand;
May he live and breathe as long as You’ve planned,
Ignoring the pompous sound of human demands
With its willful ignorance of what was beforehand.

O LORD, resurrection and life, You —
There is no one else we can look to;
In Whom dwells all that is peaceful and true;
Who by grace, through faith, can make all things new.

Above all, thy will be done.
May all who hear of Alfie, one by one,
Get to know Your voice and come
To the One we know has already won.


Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. You can follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

Click here for more prayers from our For America Prayer Journal.