I have pleaded with you before to realize that secular humanists are systematically targeting our children for indoctrination. A recent op-ed titled “Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it.” in one of our nation’s most prestigious newspapers, The Washington Post, helps stress the urgency of the call to stand up and fight for your children.
Though The Post makes the headline personal to make the writer Lauren Rowello’s message more palatable, her call is collective. She is pushing community standards. It’s not that she wants her kids to see sexual deviant behavior (she will make sure of that); she wants your kids to see it. That is why she is writing publicly, advocating for the behavior to be kept in full public display of children—again, they are the target.
She is not urging this wickedness for herself or even as the “self-expression” of those involved, but for the great “benefit” of corrupting children’s minds.
To their shame, The Washington Post, gives her a platform to expand her reach. The author writes, “Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid — no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences.”
Your child needs this, you see. That is why Pride parades must be celebrated in public on the busiest streets of the most dynamic of towns. And the more sexually deviant behaviors they showcase, the better…
Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!
This week, on the last day of the Court’s 2020 term, the United States Supreme Court gave us a significant First Amendment victory in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the cases, concluding, “California’s disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.”
The decision is a major victory for the First Amendment, for us at Concerned Women for America (CWA), since we submitted a brief supporting the Petitioners, but more importantly, it is a victory for freedom.
California’s requirement for charities to file major donor lists was a blatant attempt at political intimidation, which would have been exploited maliciously in today’s cancel culture environment. Thankfully, the Supreme Court recognized it for what it was and declared it unconstitutional.
There was some disagreement among the justices about the standard of review to be applied in this case. The Chief Justice argued for an “exacting” scrutiny standard, which would be lower than the traditional “strict” scrutiny, which is the highest the Court applies. In the case of an exacting scrutiny standard, the law does not have to be the “least restrictive” means for the government to accomplish its purposes, but it does mean that it has to be “narrowly tailored.”
This law was blatantly not “narrowly tailored,” so it was declared unconstitutional.
Though we agree with Justice Thomas, who argued in his concurrence that in review of a law that so blatantly burdens First Amendment rights, the higher strict scrutiny standard should apply; Justices Alito and Gorsuch were right in writing that this law was so egregious it fails either standard.
Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan dissented.
The Court recognized that the law “casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases.” Juxtapose that with the risks involved in today’s day and age, and the danger is hard to ignore.
“The petitioners here, for example, introduced evidence that they and their supporters have been subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence,” the Chief Justice wrote. And continued, “Such risks are heightened in the 21st century and seem to grow with each passing year, as ‘anyone with access to a computer [can] compile a wealth of information about’ anyone else, including such sensitive details as a person’s home address or the school attended by his children.”
This recognition is significant. Cancel culture is a cancer that has overtaken our culture by storm, and the Court needs to recognize it here. California, of course, tried to downplay this issue at oral arguments, boasting of its intent to keep the information private, even when the evidence showed they had violated that privacy in multiple ways.
You are sure to hear this ruling reported as a “conservative Court” acting on behalf of conservatives. A New York Times tweet read, “Breaking News: The Supreme Court rejected California’s requirement that charities report the identities of major donors, siding with conservative groups who said the disclosures could lead to harassment.” This is fake news, as we’ve come to expect. They are manipulating this decision for political gain.
The reality is this was an unusual case where most charitable organizations from both the left and the right were in agreement, standing against California’s radicalism. As the Court noted, “The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of human endeavors.”
Yes, this was the rare case where CWA stood alongside the American Civil Liberties Union and many other organizations, conservative and liberal. Good to see the Court take notice and concluding, “the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important.”
Catholic Social Services (CSS) has been serving the underprivileged children of Philadelphia for over two centuries. The organization serves children through adoption and foster care services as an outpouring of the love embodied in the tenets of the Christian faith.
This is a problem for the Left.
Today’s secular humanist Left is adamant about crushing dissenting views. All people and organizations that refuse to publicly affirm support for LGBTQIA+ desires must be “canceled”—ostracized, isolated, punished, re-educated. Christians, in particular, are a nuisance. They continue to believe in Creation as told in Scripture. They believe every person has intrinsic value as created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That’s why they just will not shut up about the injustice of abortion.
Christians insist that God created us male and female (Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4) and that God instituted marriage and the family as a foundational institution (Genesis 2:24) that reflects the most sacred relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31,32). They dare to promote that children honor both their mother and father (Exodus 20:12, Ephesians 6:2). They insist on loving God above all and neighbors as themselves (Mark 12:30,31). They even believe their help of the poor is akin to serving Christ himself (Matthew 25:40).
This is intolerable. Well, it’s been tolerable for 200 years, but no more. When the Liberal Elites got wind (through a newspaper report) that CSS would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents due to its religious convictions, they decided to kick them off the state’s programs designed to help needy children. …
Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!
In our distress we cry out to You, Lord,
For You hear our prayers.
We stand at the door and knock,
Confident that You will open.
Not to excuse our unfaithfulness,
But to receive us in Your grace
Upon the confession of our sin,
Bidding us to turn from our wicked ways.
We extol You for your goodness and patience.
Our hearts burst with the songs of thanksgiving!
Give us understanding, Father, give us wisdom,
According to Your Word, generously and without reproach.
Restore in us the spiritual tastebuds that
Appreciate the sweetness of Your statutes.
All Your commandments are righteous and good.
They bring life. Peace and joy are its fruit.
May Your hand become our help and rest,
We choose to trust in You, instead of our frantic work.
Help our fellow countryman to value Your ways,
Grant us to see, collectively, that there is no other way.
That Your Law may be our delight is our plight.
For we all as sheep have gone astray;
We know we have lost our way,
And turn to You, Good Shepherd, to guide us again.
Your ways alone are just.
We pray against those who promise
The sort of justice that enslaves,
We pray their self-aggrandizing schemes fail.
We pray for those who get caught up in their ways.
Have mercy, O God, and help us to be there,
Once the deceivers find no use for them and abandons them,
Let Your body delight in that restorative work.
For we are not without hope.
None are beyond Your Love, O God.
There is power in Your Word,
There is power in the blood.
You’ve done it in our lives,
Throughout the ages You have been glorified.
Continue Your work, LORD, in our land.
Glory to God, now and forevermore!
A historic win for religious liberty at the United States Supreme Court today inFulton v. Philadelphia! And you know who was the only grouppresentatthe Supreme Court to celebratethis landmark decision? That’sright, Concerned Women for America (CWA) was there to be your voiceand provide some much-needed context for the media. Which is why you willsee CWA picturesfeatured in news accounts across the wires.
Freedom Rings Again in Philadelphia with Big First Amendment Win at U.S. Supreme Court
Washington, D.C. – Conservative women celebrate the just-released U.S. Supreme Court decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the largest public policy organization for women in the nation, had this to say:
“As the Court acknowledged, ‘The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with [Catholic Social Services] CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.’
“This is a commonsense decision that represents the most basic principles of freedom. Americans should be free to act upon matters of conscience according to their deeply held religious beliefs without fear of government retribution.
“Children are the real winners here. Children in foster care or in need of a forever home have benefitted from religious communities, like Catholic Social Services, selflessly committed to their welfare for thousands of years. Government should welcome such humble assistance and encourage their expansion, instead of putting a target on them seeking their demise, as Philadelphia tried to do here.
“In a pluralistic society, we must resist those in power who seek to impose their preferred views in matters of faith by force. We must learn to respect one another and understand that disagreement is not bigotry.
“Today, the Court lives up to the promise of our founding and adheres to the essence of our First Amendment freedoms to the free exercise of religion.”
Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) is the legislation and advocacy arm of Concerned Women for America. Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 40-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.
In my inaugural Substack exclusive, I wrote to you about the strategic targeting of our children by secularist humanists intent on capturing and manipulating their minds and emotions before they are developed enough to make wise decisions.
It is unmistakable what is happening; the examples are innumerable. Nickelodeon, not content with its Blue’s Clues Pride efforts, put out a video explaining the meaning of the pride flag featuring Drag Queen Nina West (yes, the real-life character depicted in the preschoolers’ cartoon). The video’s description encourages children to “celebrate by lifting up voices in the LGBTQIA+ community!”
I bet most of you had not heard of the subtle addition of “IA” to the “LGBTQ+” term. Your children probably had not heard of it either. But fear not, thanks to Nickelodeon, they are sure to Google the term so that they can learn all about it. The first “resource” they get from Google will take them to the OutRight Action International website, where they can learn about another 30 plus terms related to sexual preferences. Other organizations prominently featured by Google on such a search include the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG, GLSEN, and Lambda Legal. I’ll save you the pain of having to read their propaganda and tell you that the “I” stands for intersex, and the “A” stands for asexual, among other things…
Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!
Young Women for America hosted Mario Diaz, Esq., Concerned Women for America’s Legal Counsel this week to discuss the latest opinions handed down by the Supreme Court and to look ahead to oral arguments this coming fall in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In the paragraphs that follow, I attempt the impossible. Few achieve the magical task of putting into words the unspeakable fidgeting of the heart. It is a dangerous business to engage oneself, especially on matters where the cultural meets the spiritual. But it is a necessary work, for it is the work of universal truth—the work of freedom.
Millions feel the truth. But that is not enough. We must know the truth. It is that which sets us free.
The truth we must face today is that our children are being systematically targeted by secular humanists who are enemies of God and His Word. They do not want to “live and let live.” They want your children. They want you isolated. They want to dismantle in your children’s minds all notions of truth, especially those Scriptural truths you have taught to them.
Don’t know how that works? What does the rainbow symbolize for your children?
As they wake up in the morning, they’ll have their Kellogg’s cereal telling them to roleplay, choosing their preferred pronouns. Next, perhaps they want to watch some cartoons in the morning, as we all did growing up, and they have “Blue’s Clues Pride Parade Sing-Along with Drag Star Nina West Celebrating LGBTQ Families.”
There they learn about families that have “two daddies,” “babas [that] are nonbinary,” “trans members,” and even about “ace, bi, and pan grown-ups,” all “allies to the queer community.”
A friend commented she had to look up some of the terms. And guess what, many children will too. They will learn a lot more than what’s on one episode, thanks to that cute blue dog.
But your children don’t watch that; they watch Disney Plus. Or maybe they are older now and just like going to Target or Walmart where they’ll be presented with beautiful displays of LGBTQ+ affirming merchandise and messages, like the asexual or non-binary flag pride t-shirt or the “trans rights are human rights” one.
All these messages being pushed upon our children are guaranteed to have an effect. Our children will “google” these terms and find out more. They will consider them…
Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!
We are still to know that You are God,
Father of light and beauty.
We will exalt Your Name this day
And forevermore, wherever we stand.
You are our Fortress and our Shield,
Your love is from everlasting to everlasting.
Forgive our internal distress due to our lack of faith—
Born from the fact that we have taken our eyes away from You.
With the sons of Korah, we declare
That “we will not fear … though the earth be removed,
And though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea”
For You are with us.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is our Refuge;
Who can withstand His perfect will?
Therefore, we do not fret, complain or grumble;
We trust Your perfect ways.
We do not lose heart—we have hope in Christ,
Though evildoers celebrate in the city gates,
Saying they have prevailed in their warped ways,
We fight with renewed vigor each new day.
We know our labor in You is not in vain;
Your Word does not come back empty, but
Will accomplish the purposes for which You have sent it.
And You have sent us—keep us focused and grounded.
Help us see that which is good and true, honorable and praiseworthy,
Just and inspiring, commendable and excellent,
All the love You have poured out for us, Lord. Help us to see
Help us remember it daily.
Unite Your body, Father God,
Help us to fight together,
To speak with one voice
Proclaiming Your never changing Truth.
With courage and compassion,
Help us to be faithful to Your plan
In all areas of our lives.
In Jesus, Amen.
The case1 presents a challenge to a Mississippi state law that places strict limits on abortions after 15 weeks.
The case is not a direct challenge to Roe. The limited question before the Court is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.2
The Mississippi law is known as the “Gestational Age Act,”3 and it seeks to protect women and unborn children by limiting abortions after 15 weeks only to the cases of medical emergencies and/or several fetal abnormalities.
Though it is true that the Supreme Court manufactured a constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade,4 the Court has always recognized “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus” (see Planned Parenthood v. Casey5).
The Court’s jurisprudence has been a complete failure in balancing those two interests, namely, the Court-created right to an abortion and the state’s interest in protecting the health of the mother and the life of a baby in the womb.
The Court has used many legal tricks to try to establish some guidelines, including a baby’s viability and the burden on the woman’s rights, but their efforts in this area have been decidedly legislative in nature and beyond the role the Constitution envisioned for the Court.
Scientific progress has given us a window into the womb, thereby destroying the foundation upon which Roe and Casey and the Supreme Court’s entire abortion jurisprudence rests.
With advancements in ultrasounds, not only do we know the life inside the womb is a baby, but doctors are able to perform life-saving treatment, even perform surgery, as with the famous cases of babies with spina bifida.6
Babies feel pain at a very early stage. The scientific evidence shows that from 15 weeks onward, “the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, and that this fact should be taken into account when performing invasive medical procedures on the fetus. It is necessary to apply adequate analgesia to prevent the suffering of the fetus.”7
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine,8 a 15-week-old baby:
Has eyes and eyelids with a well-formed face,
Limbs have developed,
The baby has hands and feet with little toes and fingers that have gone so far as to develop nails on them (he or she can make a fist!),
The genitals have appeared,
Organs are fast developing with the baby’s liver already making red blood cells of its own,
And muscle tissue and bones continue to grow and become harder, making it possible to begin to move.
It is time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the 21st Century.
Americans overwhelmingly support banning late-term abortion and restricting it during the first trimester. A recent Marist poll found 75% of Americans, including 61% of those who identify as pro-choice, say abortion should be banned at the very least to after the first trimester.9
It is time for Roe’s House of Cards to come tumbling down. Women and children deserve better than the legislative games the Supreme Court has employed up to this point!
It is the states’ highest duty to protect the health of mothers and the life of babies. They should be free to enact laws to do that in the best way they see possible, as Mississippi has done here.
 Supreme Court Docket No. 19-1392, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-1392.html.
 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Question Presented, available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/19-01392qp.pdf.
 Mississippi House Bill 1510, available at https://legiscan.com/MS/text/HB1510/id/1692666.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html.
 The Perinatal Revolution, Colleen Malloy, M.D., Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, M.D., MPH, and Tara Sander Lee, Ph.D, Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 34, Issue 1, Article 2, (Spring 2019).
 Fact Sheet: Science of Fetal Pain, Charlotte Lozier Institute, available at https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/, citing Sekulic S et al., Appearance of fetal pain could be associated with maturation of the mesodiencephalic structures. J Pain Res. 9, 1031, 2016.
 Fetal development, MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine, available at https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm, accessed May 21, 2021.
 America’s Opinions on Abortion, January 2019, available at https://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/american-attitudes-abortion-knights-of-columbus-marist-poll-slides.pdf.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Explained
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pro-life case out of Mississippi challenging a state law that places strict limits on abortions after 15-weeks. As with every single pro-life case that comes to the Supreme Court, you are about to hear news from the usual suspects in the liberal media that the world is about to end — again! Pay no attention to their hysterics. Here is what you need to know.
As the Supreme Court has said numerous times, states have a legitimate interest in limiting abortion and protecting innocent life. Relying on that premise, Mississippi’s “Gestational Age Act,” enacted in 2018, limits abortions after 15 weeks to the cases of medical emergencies and several fetal abnormalities.
The law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional by abortionists at the Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A federal district court agreed with the abortion clinic, declaring that Supreme Court precedent does not allow states to restrict abortions in this way until a fetus becomes “viable.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision.
Mississippi is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court has fortunately granted the review. Although you will hear the constant drumming of protecting Roe, the limited question before the Court is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
The case will be heard in the fall when the justices return from the summer recess. It joins Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, another pro-life case that will deal with a more procedural question about the State’s authority to ensure that laws are fully defended in the courts. Dobbs, therefore, becomes the most crucial pro-life case the Court will hear, given that it will deal with the merits of the law, testing the limits of the Court’s dubious abortion jurisprudence.
The scientific advances made since the lies upon which Roe and Casey were built have exposed the lie of abortion. As women peer into the womb, the fact that we are not dealing with a blob of tissue has become apparent. And given that undeniable fact, pro-abortion proponents and sympathetic judges have struggled to come up with a clearly arbitrary, yet credible, artificial line at which to allow abortions.
Most Americans (up to 74%) want to ban second and third-trimester abortions.
Now you may be thinking, “What difference does that make? This is a legal case, and polls shouldn’t matter to the Court,” and you would be right. Traditionally, the Court would look at the law and the facts of the case and render a decision on the law, giving the legislature ample room to operate and make policy determinations within constitutional limits.
Nevertheless, in the case of Roe—in the abortion context—the Court has so overstepped its role that all it has and will ever have (until it corrects itself) are questions of policy. Now they are legislating about viability and weighing and reweighing the state’s interests in protecting life and protecting women and children. It is embarrassing. Can there be any more compelling interest than these?
But when it comes to abortion, the Supreme Court has had to employ all kinds of gimmicks and smokescreens in order to ignore its traditional role and interpretative procedures to preserve the abortion fiction. Justice Anthony Kennedy admitted as much in the Carhart decision writing:
“It is true this longstanding maxim of statutory interpretation has, in the past, fallen by the wayside when the Court confronted a statute regulating abortion. The Court at times employed an antagonistic ‘canon of construction under which in cases involving abortion, a permissible reading of a statute [was] to be avoided at all costs.’”
What has the other side so bent out of shape this time around is that they are not sure they have enough liberal legal wizards to perform their abortion alchemy to save their all-encompassing pro-abortion standard, where even the most reasonable restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional.
There is indeed much hope for most Americans who support such restrictions, given the gains we have made at the U.S. Supreme Court. But far from a turn to the extreme right as you are sure to read about in the papers, all we will hopefully witness (God willing) is a return to the basic tenant of truth in law. A return to scientific reasonableness. A return to biological reality.
“America is not a racist country,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) as he delivered the response to President Joe Biden’s first address to Congress. He is right. Racism is not uniquely American; it is uniquely human. It is uniquely sinful. It existed before America and will live after.
The now-famous Critical Race Theory (CRT) is spreading the problem further by merely changing the assailant and the target of racism. In the name of ending discrimination, critical thinkers have managed to develop a program that is itself racist. It just flips the equation.
But the targets of CRT are varied. Ibram X. Kendi, one of the chief proponents of CRT who directs the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, has said that “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” That is why many have rightly traced the roots of CRT to Marxism.
Thankfully, parents are waking up to this pernicious ideology, especially as it is being applied in education, and they are rising up. One Virginia mom’s video went viral, as this African American mother spoke truth to power at her local school board meeting:
“In the words of Martin Luther King Jr., ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ Now I have a dream that we will implement love, not hate, or supporting another Jim Crow’s agenda.
CRT is not an honest dialogue. It is a tactic that was used by Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan on slavery very many years ago to dumb down my ancestors— so we could not think for ourselves.
CRT is racist. It is abusive. It discriminates against one’s color. Let me educate you. An honest dialogue does not oppress. An honest dialogue does not implement hatred or injustice. It is to communicate without deceiving people.
Today we don’t need your agreement; we want action and a backbone for what we ask for today: to ban CRT. We don’t want your political advertisement to divide our children or belittle them. Think twice before you indoctrinate such racist theories.
You cannot tell me what is or is not racist. Look at me! I had to come down here today to tell it to your face that we are coming together, and we are strong. This will not be the last greet and meet. Respectfully.
She expresses the frustration that millions of parents from all racial and cultural backgrounds are feeling.
Christians, in particular, believe Scripture which teaches us that we were all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and are all the descendants of Adam (Romans 5:12-14). We have a God Who commands us to love one another (John 13:34). A God Who loves righteousness and justice (Psalm 89:14). Therefore, we are uniquely positioned to stand up against injustice, wherever it is found—whether in the racism of old or in the new CRT form.
Because of the strong foundation in truth we profess, we can call ourselves back to that eternal truth when we fail to live up to it. That is how the great abolitionists of old were able to bring about the lasting progress we see today. Here is how Fredrick Douglass expressed it in a speech he delivered in Rochester, New York, on July 5, 1852:
You profess to believe “that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth,” and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred,) all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage, which according to your own Thomas Jefferson, “is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose,” a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.
So yes, let us fight racism and injustice wherever we find it. And in that spirit, we must resist this new racist CRT ideology.
We commend the states that are already taking action against it and encourage all our members to communicate with their state representatives to make sure they are aware of the pernicious nature of CRT ideology.
Let us resist the forces that insist on dividing us and further aggravating the wounds of our past racism and let us fight together for unity and true diversity in Christ.
They know it is wrong. You have told them it is wrong. But our kids do it anyway, don’t they? Of course, we know once caught, they promise they will never do it again. Ever. They promise they get it, but you walk away from the conversation thinking, “They don’t get it.”
That was the feeling one got from the state of California after hearing oral arguments this week in two significant First Amendment cases before the United States Supreme Court: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta.
The cases challenge California’s effort to force all non-profits that solicit support in the state to disclose to the government sensitive information about their major donors.
Although the state recognizes the glaring constitutional burdens on individual rights to freedom of speech and association, it still claims it needs the private information to guard against fraud. Besides, the state promises to keep the information super confidential.
Only they haven’t. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out during oral arguments, the district court that heard the evidence in this case found that “there was a pervasive, recurring pattern of inadvertent disclosure by California.” In other words, they promise to keep the donor information private, but they don’t. They leak them intentionally or by error, ensuring, as the court also found, that “donors would likely be subject to threats and harassment.”
So, what do you do when your child has a pervasive and recurring pattern of misbehavior that endangers others? Do you just need them to promise you (one more time) that they will never do it again? …
It was supposed to be President Joe Biden’s big night as he delivered his first address to Congress last night, but it was Sen. Tim Scott who delivered light through his hope-filled response. If you did not get a chance to hear it, I urge you to take a moment.
This is the message the country needs at this moment.
We are not adversaries. We are family! We are all in this together. And we get to live in the greatest country on Earth. The country where my grandfather, in his 94 years, saw his family go from cotton to Congress in one lifetime.
So I am more than hopeful — I am confident — that our finest hour is yet to come.
Original sin is never the end of the story. Not in our souls, and not for our nation. The real story is always redemption.
Amen! That is the truth. While President Biden continued to lean in on our divisions, to strengthen his political position further, Sen. Scott focused on our blessings, even ending by proclaiming one over our nation:
I am standing here because my mom has prayed me through some very tough times. I believe our nation has succeeded the same way. Because generations of Americans, in their own ways, have asked for grace — and God has supplied it.
So, I will close with a word from a worship song that helped me through this past year. The music is new, but the words draw from Scripture.
[May] the Lord bless you and keep you,
Make His face shine upon you
And be gracious to you.
May His presence go before you,
And behind you, and beside you.
In your weeping and rejoicing,
He is with you.
May His favor be upon [our nation] for a thousand generations
And your family … and your children …
And their children.
It was a stark contrast. While President Biden continued to malign those who disagreed with him, even continuing his pernicious mischaracterization of conservatives’ election integrity efforts, Sen. Scott tackled the issue with dignity and sincerity.
A hundred years ago, kids in classrooms were taught the color of their skin was their most important characteristic — and if they looked a certain way, they were inferior.
Today, kids again are being taught that the color of their skin defines them — and if they look a certain way, they’re an oppressor. From colleges to corporations to our culture, people are making money and gaining power by pretending we haven’t made any progress. By doubling down on the divisions we’ve worked so hard to heal.
You know this stuff is wrong. Hear me clearly: America is not a racist country.
It’s backwards to fight discrimination with different discrimination. And it’s wrong to try to use our painful past to dishonestly shut down debates in the present.
I’m an African American who has voted in the South all my life. I take voting rights personally. Republicans support making it easier to vote and harder to cheat. And so do voters! Big majorities of Americans support early voting, and big majorities support Voter I.D. — including African Americans and Hispanics. Common sense makes common ground.
But today, this conversation has collapsed. The state of Georgia passed a law that expands early voting; preserves no-excuse mail-in voting; and, despite what the President claimed, did not reduce Election Day hours.
If you actually read this law, it’s mainstream. It will be easier to vote early in Georgia than in Democrat-run New York. But the left doesn’t want you to know that. They want people to virtue-signal by yelling about a law they haven’t even read.
Fact-checkers have called out the White House for misstatements. The President absurdly claims this is worse than Jim Crow. What is going on here?
I’ll tell you. A Washington power grab.
This misplaced outrage is supposed to justify Democrats’ sweeping bill that would take over elections for all 50 states; send public funds to political campaigns you disagree with and make the bipartisan Federal Elections Commission partisan!
This is not about civil rights or our racial past. It’s about rigging elections in the future.
Sen. Scott also called liberals out, including the President, for their reckless and untruthful characterization of the filibuster.
And, no — the same filibuster that President Obama and President Biden praised when they were Senators, that Democrats used just last year, has not suddenly become a racist relic just because the shoe is on the other foot.
Race is not a political weapon to settle every issue the way one side wants.
It’s too important.
His focus was on common ground and common sense. And he exposed how the liberals’ increasing radicalism on issues that should unite us is hurting our country.
The President is abandoning principles he held for decades. Now, he says your tax dollars should fund abortions. He’s laying groundwork to pack the Supreme Court.
This is not common ground.
On issue after issue, he showed that common sense and common ground should be possible. Yet, it is continually being rejected by a hyper partisan Administration that seems to believe the national divide benefits them. His words on education were yet another inspiring example.
Locking vulnerable kids out of the classroom is locking adults out of their future.
Our public schools should have reopened months ago. Other countries did.
Private and religious schools did. Science has shown for months that schools are safe. But too often, powerful grown-ups set science aside. And kids like me were left behind.
The clearest case for school choice in our lifetimes.
I conclude by asking you to pray for Sen. Scott. There is no question he stole the spotlight and delivered the message the country deserved today. And you can bet that the left will hate him for it. Let us pray that his light may only increase in the months and years ahead.
I take the opportunity to write to you today about media bias (1) because of a recent D.C. Circuit Court opinion that highlights the issue in a compelling way, but (2) because we simply cannot grow tired of fighting this menace at every turn.
Surely, it is incredibly frustrating, and at times we get tired of the proverbial deck being stacked against us. Still, I encourage you to remain diligent in exposing the press’s blatant bias every chance you get. Many around us are still clueless about it!
I write to you from my office in D.C. having finished watching President Joe Biden’s first press conference since taking office. Wow! The transformation of the Trump White House Press Corps to the Biden one is astronomical. Here is the second questioner of the day, Yamiche Alcindor from the taxpayer-funded PBS:
Thanks so much, Mr. President. Ahm, you’ve said over and over again that immigrants shouldn’t come to this country right now; this isn’t the time to come. That message is not being received. Instead, the perception of you, that got you elected as a moral, decent man, is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and trusting you with unaccompanied minors. How do you resolve that tension?
I almost spit my coffee out laughing. The bias is plain for all to see, so let us continue to expose it and not grow tired or cynical as we shine a light on the problems we face.
Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit Court recently penned a significant dissent in which he took the time to state the obvious, but it is vital for him to take the time to do it, and we can learn from his bold approach. I want to highlight some extensive passages from his dissenting opinion in Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc.
The case was a libel suit that allowed Judge Silberman to touch on the fact that most of the media is an extended arm of the Democratic Party:
Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.
He also touched on the fact that Big Tech is part of this problem:
As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.
It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination “raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace.” R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn. But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.
He also noted the efforts to silence even the very few conservative voices in media that there are:
To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship.
Finally, he notes the dangerous relationship that a media invested in protecting a political party in power presents:
It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.
I highlight for you as a conclusion the judge’s last footnote, where he notes one of the root causes of the media crisis we face: “The reasons for press bias are too complicated to address here. But they surely relate to bias at academic institutions.”
He is right. And we, as freedom-loving Americans, must not be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task. We must embrace the challenge to take back our institutions—one step at a time.
You can understand why they do it. The Left has figured out that everyone wants to stand against racism. They know it first-hand. Many of the most racist policies in American History came to us, in fact, through the Left. So now, they figure that calling their opponents racists on every issue gives them the high moral ground.
It’s a silly, fake, and politically motivated charge that bears no semblance of truth, but sadly, it works.
It works because most of the media today is also radically left, so the argument will always be treated as accurate, no matter how preposterous. You dare vote against their chosen nominee? Racist. You dare say that men do not menstruate? Transphobe!
But it is not only that they will make that charge. The Left’s stand has gotten so radical that they now support racism in the name of diversity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) blew me away with a radically racist statement this week, saying, “I am a no vote on the floor, on all non-diversity nominees. You know, I will vote for racial minorities, and I will vote for LGBTQ. But anybody else I’m not voting for.”
The new “woke theology” promoted by the Left says that it is not racist, you see because it’s directed against their hated target: “white men.” But it is. It is breathtakingly racist, and we, as Christians, must speak against it just as we speak against any other type of racism.
We must fight it as vigorously as we fought against slavery – as courageously as Fredrick Douglas, as boldly as Dr. King, as persistently as Wilberforce. We must continue to dream with Dr. King of “a nation where [people] will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The Left has turned Dr. King’s dream into the exact opposite. It is a nightmare. Character is nothing to them. Your race, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and political affiliation are everything.
That is why this week’s hearing on S.1, the so-called “For the People’s Act,” was so predictable. Election integrity is a big issue around the nation after the extraordinary events of the last election. Millions are not entirely confident in the results of elections from bothpolitical parties.
So, it is understandable that many states are considering bolstering their election procedures to ensure our votes’ integrity is preserved and increase American’s confidence in the system.
But according to the Left, any effort by conservatives on this front is, as you can probably guess, (drum roll, please) racist.
Once again, though the Left has consistently complained about foul play on elections, they won the last one, so it is racist to claim so now. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), the last election was “one of the safest in recent history.”
At the hearing, he went straight for the jugular, “Our country has come a long way, supposedly, since African Americans in the south were forced to guess the number of jelly beans in a jar in order to vote,” he predictably said, “But some of these voter suppression laws in Georgia and other Republican States smack of Jim Crow rearing its ugly head once again.”
No shame in looking at his colleagues as he does this. They want power, and the ends justify the means. The press is in agreement, so he’ll get glowing reviews for his bold stance against those “white, old men.” Other Democrats followed the same script.
But anyone thinking about this for more than two minutes can see that asking someone to have a photo I.D. to vote is most reasonable. You need a photo I.D. to buy some medicine at the grocery store. Is that an effort to keep medicine away from minorities?
It’s preposterous – not to mention insulting for those of us who are minorities.
That is the truth. Every state needs to have a voting photo I.D. law on the books. It is common sense.
That is one of the many reasons that we must oppose S.1 – the Left’s attempt to make every photo I.D. law in the nation illegal. And in the process, we can emphatically reject the race baiting and outright racism that has become so common in the Left’s political discourse.
At a time when the country is in desperate need of confidence in our elections, this bill will completely shatter American’s confidence. The bill oversteps constitutional limits by seeking to curtail the states’ rights in an attempt to nationalize election procedures and permanently alter the power balance to favor one political party. These are some of the most grievous provisions included in H.R. 1:
It makes pandemic-related emergency changes to election procedures permanent. The threat presented by COVID-19 in the last election gave way to a barrage of “accommodations,” like expanding mail-in voting or extending deadlines beyond what state law required, which gave way to irregularities that undermined public confidence in the election. H.R. 1 wants to force states to make these changes permanently. For example:
It requires states to implement an automatic registration system to register any eligible unregistered citizen, while at the same time shielding them from prosecution if ineligible voters are mistakenly registered.
It mandates no-excuse absentee voting, while prohibiting the requiring of a voter I.D.
Its ultimate end is to nationalize our election system.
It mandates that states provide ballot drop boxes 45 days before a federal election.
It requires states to establish an independent redistricting commission, in strict violation of federalism principles.
It establishes a new federal “Election Security Grants Advisory Committee,” to award grants to states that meet federal preferences.
It seeks to aggravate our national divide in order to punish political opponents, in direct violation of our First Amendment protections.
Imposes new requirements on any group that merely seeks to speak about federal policy, incentivizing disengagement.
It seeks to force citizens who contribute to nonprofit organizations into a searchable government database, facilitating the harassment and intimidation of private citizens by making their personal information available to the public.
It makes permanent the politicization of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that we have experienced in the past under malicious officials like Lois Lerner.
It permits the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy persuasions of any organization and its members before granting tax-exempt status.
As if our national debt was not a crisis already, it seeks to inject more federal money into funding political campaigns.
R. 1 actually creates a 6 to 1 government match to any small donor contributions of $200 or less in a congressional or presidential campaign.
It also establishes a new voucher pilot program that grants eligible voters a $25 voucher to donate to any campaign of their choosing.
It further seeks to blatantly politicize the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
It changes the FEC from a bipartisan, six-member agency to a partisan, five-member agency under the control of whoever is president, opening it up to political manipulations by a simple majority.