The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important religious liberty case this week, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Sharonell Fulton and other foster parents who work with Catholic Social Services (whose work goes back 200 years in the city) brought suit after the City of Philadelphia tried to kick them out of the foster care and adoption arena because of their faith.
The city wants to force them to violate their faith and place children with same-sex couples. Concerned Women for America submitted a brief in support of the foster parent’s religious liberty.
This should be a simple case. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That is exactly what the city is doing here in trying to prevent Catholic Social Services from serving the poor and needy in the way they have done for centuries.
Lori Windham, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represented the foster parents put it succinctly for the justices. “The City has no compelling reason for excluding Catholic Social Services, which has exercised its faith by serving at-risk children in Philadelphia for two centuries,” she said in her opening presentation.
The real motivation behind this law, a blatant attack on Christians, was exposed in Court as Justice Samuel Alito asked a simple question: “How many same-sex couples in Philadelphia have been denied the opportunity to be foster parents as a result of Catholic Social Services’ policy?”
To which Ms. Windham responded, “Zero. In fact, Justice Alito, none have even approached Catholic Social Services asking for this approval and endorsement.”
Still, the liberal justices wanted to see a big problem here, suggesting, as they always do, that the situation is akin to Catholic Social Services discriminating against African Americans. But both, Ms. Windham for the foster parents and the federal government who also presented arguments in their support were careful to bring back the issue to what was really before them. “What the City’s trying to do here is tell religious groups who have been doing this prior to when the City got involved, ‘We’re going to exclude you; you can no longer carry out this work unless you take actions that are contrary to your faith.’”
Ms. Windham concluded saying, “In our pluralistic society, a properly functioning Free Exercise Clause is supposed to prevent this kind of unnecessary and harmful conflict. There are children in need of loving homes waiting for them. Neither Philadelphia nor [precedent] should stand in the way.”
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan also presented in support of religious liberty on behalf of the United States. He took the argument from where Ms. Windham left off. “Philadelphia has not afforded Catholic Social Services the tolerance of religious practice that is required by the Free Exercise Clause and vital to our pluralistic nation,” he said.
He was strong also in responding to the liberal justices’ contention that this requirement was neutral and did not target faith specifically. He highlighted that the city indeed made many exceptions to their supposed rule, including in law. “[U]nder 55 Pennsylvania Code 3700.64,” he highlighted, “the City requires agencies to consider both familial status and disability in certifying foster children — foster parents. The City has tolerated racial and ethnic-based outreach to — for foster parents. And then the City itself considers race and disability when placing children.”
But now, when it comes to taking into account faith, they want to bully Christian agencies to violate their deeply held beliefs to accommodate the city’s desired preferences.
Radical liberal attorney Neal Katyal represented the City of Philadelphia and tried to persuade the Court that they extended those exemptions at a different stage and so that made it different. It was not persuasive. Justice Alito, again, got to the heart of the matter: “[I]f we are honest about what’s really going on here, it’s not about ensuring that same-sex couples in Philadelphia have the opportunity to be foster parents. It’s the fact that the City can’t stand the message that Catholic Social Services and the Archdiocese are sending by continuing to adhere to the old-fashioned view about marriage. Isn’t that the case?”
Katyal, of course, denied it and tried to deflect to another matter.
The new member of the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also asked important questions about the ramifications of the government’s actions in this case. She asked Mr. Katyal:
[L]et’s imagine that the state takes over all hospitals and says from now on, you know, we are going to be responsible for hospitals, but we will contract with private entities to actually run them. And so there’s a Catholic hospital and gets a contract with the City to run it. In fact, it’s a Catholic hospital that’s in existence before the state adopts this policy. And its contract with the state provides that there are — in the contract the state gives everyone is that you can get some exceptions for some medical procedures, but every hospital has to perform abortions.
The deflection continued. Justice Barret made an important point because as the size of government continues to grow, this sort of anti-religious bullying will only expand to more and more areas. Justice Alito, later on talked about homeless shelters, and one could think of any number of other spaces.
The city’s position is not only that people of faith cannot get government funding to serve the poor in those cases, but that they couldn’t operate at all.
Thankfully, the oral arguments show their position is likely to be rejected by a majority of the Court.
To quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett is “going to the Court.” The hearings are over, and she simply shined through it all. The most memorable moments included ACB schooling senators trying to challenge her on precedent and originalism and severability and textualism. She was the smartest person in the room. The moment when Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) asked her to show her notes went viral because it illustrated how exceptional she was as a nominee. Here is the clip:
But the most powerful testimony, showing us the type of person we are supporting for the Supreme Court was heard on the last day. It was the testimony of Laura Wolk, one of Judge Barrett’s law students and current Supreme Court clerk, who is blind. She explained the extraordinary help she received from ACB that made it possible for her to break down barriers in the legal profession. Please watch:
These hearings were historic. The voices of conservative women were heard like never before, both inside and outside the hearing room. Sen. Graham highlighted this with his remarks on day two. He said, “This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling, but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women. You’re going to shatter that barrier. I’ve never been prouder of a nominee than I am of you.” Here is the expanded clip of his remarks:
Outside, as most of you know, the “Women for Amy” army made its mark, outshining the opposition.
The nomination will be held one week, as is customary, with some written questions and answers for the record submitted. Then a final committee vote is scheduled for October 22 at 1:00 p.m. It is expected to be 12-10, along party lines.
The nomination then will be sent to the full Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has said, “We’ll go to the floor with her on Friday, the 23rd, and stay on it until we finish this… We have the votes.”
President Donald J. Trump added 20 more names to his list of possible Supreme Court nominees. Here is who he added, saying they are in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito:
Judge Bridget Bade, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky
Paul Clement, former U.S. Solicitor General
Tom Cotton, R- Arkansas
Ted Cruz, R-Texas
Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Steven Engel, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice.
Noel Francisco, former Solicitor General of the United States
Josh Hawley, R-Missouri
Judge James Ho, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge Gregory Katsas, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Judge Barbara Lagoa, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Christopher Landau, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico
Justice Carlos Muñiz, Supreme Court of Florida
Judge Martha Pacold, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Judge Peter Phipps, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge Sarah Pitlyk, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Judge Allison Jones Rushing, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Kate Todd, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Click here to read Concerned Women for America’s (CWA) CEO and President Penny Nance’s statement on the news.
As you well know, humanity has a sin problem. We all do. This is the nature and essence of all the issues we face as a Church and as a country. Anyone talking about racism and justice must begin there. Be wary of those, whether inside or outside the Church, purporting to be fighting for “justice” while disregarding and even advocating sin.
It is impossible to address these problems efficiently while brushing aside the eternal principles of nature, as given to us by the Creator. We would be missing the problem entirely, and in fact, aggravating it further.
This is not just within the confines of the Church. We are talking about reality here. Social change must be sought in this manner. It is the way Martin Luther King, Jr. accomplished so much in such a short life. Remember his Letter from a Birmingham Jail? In it, Rev. King explained how we could determine whether a law is just or unjust. He wrote:
“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”
Justice demands a standard. And aside from God’s standard, there are only personal preferences— human preferences, to be precise. The same humanity plagued with the sin problem.
That is why so many today are committing such heinous, unjust acts of racial violence against their neighbors. They are committing such actions because they believe similar acts were committed against them or their communities. They are acting according to their evil nature and imposing their sinful preferences over another’s. Sin for sin – an atrocious exchange.
Warning: Graphic Content
Unjust, racist violence is wrong no matter who the victims and the perpetrators are; you can swap them around, and the same crime would persist. As Christians, we must fight against it in all cases.
We, as the Church of Jesus Christ, simply cannot support those whose whole strategy is to commit sinful acts against another in the name of “justice.” We do not repay evil with evil (1 Peter 3:9). We are not frustrated when some are “getting away” with this or that. This is not what we believe.
No one gets away with anything. We trust in the Lord Almighty (Romans 12:19), so we do not lose hope and fall into despair as the unbeliever does. And we reject the worldly, devilish dichotomy by the scornful telling us that not to join them in their wicked ways is to allow injustice to flourish.
No. There is a better way. The way. It was the way of Dr. King and most abolitionists throughout history. They fought injustice, even as they remember the admonitions of Proverbs 3:29, “Do not plan evil against your neighbor, who dwells trustingly beside you.” There were plenty of instigators among their ranks, too, with promises of quicker resolutions. Evildoers claim victory at every chance they get.
Do not fall for their lies. Continue to heed the Proverbs (3:31, 32), “Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways, for the devious person is an abomination to the Lord, but the upright are in his confidence.”
Standing in the confidence of God, we can speak truth that is more powerful than an entire army. We extend the hands of grace and help, empathy, and longsuffering that bring healing and reconciliation. We stand up to tyrants and, yes, perhaps even give our lives for freedom.
It is “[f]or freedom Christ has set us free,” and we, therefore, “stand firm … and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” That was our previous life. We were slaves to sin. But now, we do not walk in our former ways. We do not join the sinful mob for whatever reason. We walk in the light.
We will fight injustice. You can rest assured of that. We will just not fight it the world’s way (Romans 12:21).
May the God of all hope and peace fill you with the courage and love you need for this moment, that the power of the Holy Spirit may shine in your community now as never before.
Precisely forty-two years ago, in 1978, Beverly LaHaye held the first Concerned Women for America (CWA) meeting in San Diego, California, to educate women about the threats presented by the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). More than 1,200 attended. It was the beginning of what would become the largest public policy organization for women in the nation.
CWA went on to have a resounding victory against the ERA both in the culture and the courtroom. But, believe it or not, some radical feminists never got over that resounding loss. They are still trying to revive the old, putrefied ERA corpse to this day.
CWA continues to stand in their way.
Just last week, we filed a brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia standing against illegal efforts to bypass precedent and keep the effort to pass the ERA alive. The brief, filed by Michael Farris, who was legal counsel for CWA back when we defeated the ERA the first time, and who is now the CEO and General Counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, explains to the court why the efforts to revive this effort violates the constitutional process.
Simply put, the ERA’s ratification deadline has come and gone. The effort is legally dead. The U.S. Congress gave the states seven years to ratify it, and they failed in that effort decades ago. To pass the ERA, they would need to start the process all over again.
Even the radically liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged as much, saying at a Georgetown Law School event that the effort to revive it comes “long after the deadline passed” and needs to start over. “I would like to see a new beginning,” she told the moderator Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge M. Margaret McKeown, “I’d like it to start over.”
In our brief, we argue ERA activists themselves have acknowledged that their time has expired in numerous public statements. But now they seek to circumvent the constitutional process and revive the effort. Even their efforts to “remove the deadline,” acknowledge as much:
The Alice Paul Institute admits that “the ERA did not succeed in getting [sufficient] ratifications before the deadline.” The Feminist Majority Foundation explains that Congress must either “rescind the arbitrary timeline on ERA ratification … [or] pass the ERA again.” Likewise, the League of Women Voters of the United States currently urges its followers to “Tell Congress to remove the deadline so the ERA can cross the finish line!” … On its website, Equality Now tells supporters they “now must urge Senators to pass S.J. Res. 6, another joint resolution to eliminate the deadline. It is more important than ever to urge Senators to eliminate the original deadline!”
The ERA was bad policy then and is still bad policy today. It is why the American people rejected it. Feminists seek to use it to force their radical pro-abortion policies on the country, like finally getting our tax dollars to pay for abortions up to the moment of birth. Big abortion businesses like NARAL and Planned Parenthood have long argued that ERAs at the state level guarantee a right to taxpayer-funded abortions.
The president of the National Organization for Women argued, “The ERA would codify reproductive rights in the Constitution and greatly support low-income women who are the first to lose access to affordable birth control when family planning services are reduced.”
And today we know the ERA would be even worse for women, given the monumental fight in which we are engaged in an effort to protect women sports. Proponents of the ERA want to redefined the word “sex” in federal law opening the door for men who identify as women to hijack women’s rights, safety, and protections.
CWA is currently fighting in courts and legislatures around the country for the right of women in women’s shelter to prevent males from coming into their spaces, a development that could further aggravate the emotional and psychological pain of women who have suffered domestic abuse, rape, and even trafficking in some cases.
The bottom line is that the ERA continues to be a disaster for women and CWA is, once again, leading the fight against it to preserve the intrinsic and unique value of every woman. We won back then. And we will do so again.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has been fighting for years to expose Planned Parenthood’s (PP) legacy of death which has its roots in the racist eugenics movement. As PP celebrated 100 years a few years back, CWA launched a campaign called “100 No More,” exposing the organization’s racists founding through eugenicist Margaret Sanger. CWA also noted the disparate impact of PP’s policies on minority communities to this day.
Though African Americans are only 12.6% of the U.S. population, they make up 35.4% of all abortions, over 1 in 3. And census data shows that 79% of PP’s surgical abortion facilities are within walking distance of minority neighborhoods. Here is a shocking clip of Margaret Sanger in her own words]:
But PP and liberals have stood by Margaret Sanger’s side for decades. They defended her. They would even give out the infamous Margaret Sanger Award, which they called their “highest honor.” Proud recipients included Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Secretary Hillary Clinton.
The same liberals who prop themselves up as champions of minorities would fight us every time we would shed light on PP’s racist roots. They were proud when the Smithsonian put a bust of Margaret Sanger in the National Portrait Gallery. CWA fought them hard on it and called on them to remove it, yet they emphatically refused and were elated to have the pro-abortion display, ignoring the explicit racism attached to it.
But time has caught up to their lying, hypocritical schemes, and now they’ve been forced to acknowledge their racist legacy. The news just broke this week that Planned Parenthood of Greater New York (PPGNY) is being forced to remove the Margaret Sanger name from its abortion clinic as “a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color.”
The change does not come out of self-reflection, but out of pressure from its base. As The Washington Times reported, in a June 18 open letter, 350 current and former staff members and about 800 members wrote, “We know that Planned Parenthood has a history and a present steeped in white supremacy, and we, the staff, are motivated to do the difficult work needed to improve.”
In today’s climate, PP’s racism is no longer able to hide behind their friends in the media and the politicians they support. So, PPGNY has announced the removal of Sanger’s name, and perhaps we are seeing the beginning of the truth coming out. It is definitely an excellent development for truth and life.
The fact that it is the New York Planned Parenthood facility is significant. CWA has also talked about the deep abortion extremism in NYC, where more African American babies were killed by abortion (31,328) than born (24,758) in 2012. We can only hope that the city wakes up to this racial genocide and turns against the inherent racism within the pro-abortion movement.
To be sure, PP is only changing a name, while changing none of its racist policies, like opposing bills that have tried to ban abortions based on race. They have announced no willingness to change their shameful policy on taking money for abortions based on race.
CWA will continue to fight for justice for women. There is much work to be done to protect the inherent value of every human life. But perhaps this development shows us that Americans are starting to wake up to the abortion con and will demand change.
It is definitely something CWA had been hoping to see, and we give thanks to God for this small crack in Big Abortion’s stranglehold on our nation.
Washington, D.C.— In a 5-4 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a Montana law that targeted religious institutions for discrimination. 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:
“We applaud the Supreme Court’s majority today for recognizing that Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from the state scholarship program violates the U.S. Constitution. Tax dollars should not be used in such a blatant discriminatory way. The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause is clear, no law should aim to punish Americans for the free exercise of their faith.
“What is concerning is that all four of the liberal justices of the Court are fully on board with that type of religious discrimination. Shame on them. This should have been a unanimous decision. It is as simple as they come.
“Americans should beware of how close we are to losing our religious liberties in our country. Come election time, CWA member from around the country will make sure people know what is at stake when it comes to the courts.
“We have made progress, but there is much more work to be done.”
Believe it or not, the Little Sisters of the Poor are back at the U.S. Supreme Court still trying to defend their religious liberty from the burdens that states continue to impose on them following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in their case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court is broadcasting the arguments live, via conference during the Covid-19 lockdown period. Click here to listen to oral arguments that will be transmitted by C-Span starting at 10 AM today.
Concerned Women for America will be joining Becket, who represents the Sisters, and other pro-religious liberty organizations in a virtual rally, starting at 8:45 AM. The theme is a simple one that has carried us throughout the years fighting for these poor sisters, “Let Them Serve.” Click here to join in!
To refresh your memory, the Sisters run 30 health care facilities for the elderly poor in the United States — from nursing homes to intermediate care to residential or assisted living and other independent-living facilities. All members of their order disregarded worldly comforts, taking vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality, in order to serve the Lord and their neighbors. The Little Sisters of the Poor actually maintain a tradition of begging, demonstrating a life of true dependence on faith.
That is why it has been so infuriating from the beginning that the Obama Administration insisted that these sisters violate their religious beliefs and provide health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients. The Sisters won their case at the Supreme Court, which required the federal government to accommodate the Sisters.
The Trump Administration also broadened the scope of religious liberty protections, hoping to put an end to the issue finally. But several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sued the Federal government, saying the protections were too broad.
The Sisters were then forced to intervene in the lawsuit once again, asking the courts to let the Trump Administration implement the religious protections that will finally protect their religious liberties.
It is a simple ask that we are hoping the Supreme Court will quickly uphold, telling states to stop harassing people of faith.
The impact of President Donald Trump’s success in the appointment of judges, not only at the U.S. Supreme Court but beyond, was tangibly felt recently when the traditionally-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the Trump Administration’s implementation of Title X regulations that would effectively defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion-focused organizations.
The Ninth Circuit ruled (7-4) in California v. Azar, that the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations implementing Title X do not violate federal or constitutional law. The court acted as a limited en banc panel composed of 10 judges selected at random and the Chief Justice which is usually its final say on matters before the court. All seven judges who ruled to uphold the law were appointed by a Republican president, including two new judges appointed by President Trump.
Thirteen of the 29 judges currently serving at the Ninth Circuit have been appointed by a Republican president. That composition gives much better odds of getting constitutionalist judges to hear cases to anyone bringing their case before the court. That is why all the effort we have put into making sure we get quality nominees to the federal bench matters.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) members have understood the importance of judicial nominations for a long time. It does not matter what laws we pass if we allow judicial activists to dominate the court system imposing their personal policy preferences by judicial fiat. We are seeing the fruits of our disciplined focus on this area for many years. I want to thank those of you who have done the hard work behind the scenes to support our efforts in this area.
The opinion in the California v. Azar case shows clearly the contrast of judges trying to impose their policy preferences unto laws and courageous judges standing up for judicial restraint in the most sensitive of areas, like abortion. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, exposed some of the passionate language that judges use to masquerade as legal authority (citation omitted):
The dissent relies heavily on its mistaken view that the Final Rule is a “Gag Rule” that “gags health care providers from fully counseling women about their options while pregnant.” … The dissent conjures up a “Kafkaesque” situation where counselors have to “walk on eggshells to avoid a potential transgression” of the Final Rule and in response to questions about terminating a pregnancy can merely say: “I can’t help you with that or discuss it. Here is a list of doctors who can assist you with your pre-natal care despite the fact that you are not seeking such care.” … But this “Kafkaesque” scenario is belied by the Final Rule itself, which expressly authorizes counseling on abortion while prohibiting referrals for abortion. Indeed, the Final Rule provides its own example of a straightforward conversation with a client who asks about abortion:
[When a] pregnant woman requests information on abortion and asks the Title X project to refer her for an abortion[, then] [t]he counselor tells her that the project does not consider abortion a method of family planning and, therefore, does not refer for abortion. The counselor offers her nondirective pregnancy counseling, which may discuss abortion, but the counselor neither refers for, nor encourages, abortion. … (emphasis added). The dissent’s arguments that the Final Rule is a “Gag Rule” is merely a restatement of its disagreement with the Final Rule’s interpretation of § 1008 as precluding “referral for abortion as a method of family planning.”
To illustrate the radical activism fueling the dissenters in this case, which would have invalidated these regulations, in support of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, consider their clarification that men can get pregnant too:
While the Rule disproportionately impacts women, people of all genders rely on Title X services, can become pregnant, and will suffer the consequences of the Rule. See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 11035(g) (defining individuals eligible for pregnancy accommodation as including “transgender employee[s] who [are] disabled by pregnancy”); Jessica A. Clarke, They Them, and Theirs, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 954 (2019) (“People of all gender identities can be pregnant[.]”); see also Juno Obedin-Maliver & Harvey J. Makadon, Transgender Men and Pregnancy, 9 Obstetric Med., 4, 5 (2016).
I hope this illustrates for you the type of judges we are certain to get if we do not give this next election the importance and urgency it deserves. The work of appointing constitutionalists to the federal courts is the work of saving our republic. Thank you for staying engaged!
The organization formerly known as the Boys Scouts of America (now “Scouts BSA”) was bankrupt long before they filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this past week. Sadly, I have written to you alongside its leadership’s hurried and irrational plunge towards immorality, betraying the honor of their oath to keep “morally straight.”
The twelve-point Scout Law traditionally culminated with a beautiful call to, “Be reverent toward God.” But that highest of goals was long abandoned by the leadership who knowingly tolerated and even promoted the most egregious sinful and immoral behavior in its leaders.
Worse yet, as we now know, this rampant immorality culminated in the corruption and sexual abuse of thousands (yes, thousands) of children, while the leadership purposely looked the other way. Not only that, they were so corrupt, they did not really see the evil of the actions of its leaders. Sin has a way of eating up its host as it continues to eat away your sense of right and wrong.
The lesson for every Christian organization (and for every Christian, too) should be to actively kill sin. Pursue it. Be relentless. Declare war on the sin within you and never surrender, until the day you die.
The Scouts surrendered. And it ate them up.
Don’t be fooled. Even today, the Scouts BSA’s actions are not driven towards repentance and righteousness. They are not filing bankruptcy to do right by the victims. In fact, the very opposite is true. Declaring bankruptcy is part of their scheme to avoid facing juries on all its victim’s cases and keep secret the mountain of evidence that would expose them even further as dangerous to every parent in America.
They’ve actually been successful in their strategy to some extent. How much do you know about the abuse that went on inside the Boys Scouts? Ask yourself, are you not just generally aware that “bad” things happened or are happening in the Scouts? Many have just heard about their capitulation on homosexuality and transgenderism, about dropping the word “boy” from its name but are truly unaware of the extent of their corruption.
Allow me to illustrate. In one case in Alaska, an official contacted the Boy Scouts leadership about a leader, “sleeping nude with the boys and showing them pornographic books.” Two weeks later (two weeks!), he got a response:
I will need more information if you wish me to place him on our confidential file so that he cannot register in the future. I will agree that sleeping nude and showing the boys pornographic books indicated very poor judgement (sic) when dealing with cub scouts. I do not know, however, that this is a serious enough offense to refuse registration anywhere he might try to register unless there are more instances. (Emphasis mine)
If this doesn’t get your blood boiling, I don’t know what to tell you. These are the sort of actions that conspire to allow and protect the systematic, rampant, sexual abuse of children.
This bankruptcy, again, is the Scouts’ way to try to undercut more cases like the 2010 Oregon trial brought by a man who was sexually abused by his scoutmaster as a child. That case uncovered more than 20,000 pages of internal documents about sexual abuse in the Boy Scout’s ranks. The jury awarded 19.9 million dollars to the victim—18.5 million in punitive damages.
By seeking bankruptcy, the Scouts seek to “close its doors,” not to customers but to the thousands of victims that it should rightfully face. It seeks, as it has become an expert in doing, to keep things behind closed doors, protecting the predators at the expense of victims. They should not be allowed to rest in peace.
It was a stark contrast to go from President Donald Trump’s inspiring State of the Union Address (SOTU) back to the fake impeachment circus. As Penny Nance, CWA’s CEO and President, noted it was anticlimactic and underscored just how much time, effort, and taxpayer money went into this pitiful effort.
The Democrats needed 67 votes on each count to convict the President of the dubious charges, and they did not even come close to accomplishing their goal. The vote on Article I: Abuse of Power was 48-52, finding President Donald Trump not guilty. And the vote on Article II: Obstruction of Congress was 47-53 to acquit.
The only surprise was to see Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) disappointing decision to vote in favor of convicting the President for “Abuse of Power.” You will read much commentary on what could be behind his personal motivations. I will refrain from making that judgment.
But I will say his public explanation is unconvincing. He has seen the exact same evidence we have seen. The phone call said nothing about the aid being tied to the investigation. Ukraine got the money. And there was no investigation.
On the other hand, Sen. Romney overlooked the indisputable evidence of corruption in Ukraine, having to do with Burisma (the infamous oil and gas company) and Hunter Biden. Not only that, but he needed to look the other way to the apparent motives of the people he was joining to try to convict the President. They made their motives clear from the very first day the President was elected and continued calling for his impeachment for this reason or that.
Add to that the serious due process violations against the President on this rushed investigation (the shortest in history), and it is simply hard to see how Sen. Romney fell for the Democrat’s malicious ploy. Whatever the case, he might be sincere in his assessment, but he is sincerely wrong.
Sen. Romney knows that the evidence was not enough. That is why he voted to allow for more witnesses last week. The impeachment case against the President simply did not rise to the constitutional standard, and that is why we should be celebrating today’s overwhelming verdict of “not guilty.”
By vindicating the President and condemning this sham process, the U.S. Senate has proven correct the Founder’s wisdom in setting up the constitutional system of checks and balances that prevent such nakedly partisan efforts to remove a president for policy differences.
Today is a good day for our Republic then; even though we must admit that the Democrats’ (joined by Sen. Romney) malicious efforts have left some serious scars that will surely surface again if not properly treated.
I propose we join the President in looking forward with hope and faith in Almighty God. As he concluded his SOTU, “Our spirit is still young; the sun is still rising; God’s grace is still shining, and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come!”
With faith and hard work, you and I can make that a reality. Impeachment done; 2020 here we come.
Many may not like President Donald Trump’s style. But the numbers he presented before the U.S. Congress in his State of the Union address are uncontestable. He spoke of a great American comeback, and the evidence he presented was overwhelming.
The Trump administration “created 7 million new jobs — 5 million more than Government experts projected during the previous administration. The unemployment rate is the lowest in over half a century … the average unemployment rate under [Trump’s] Administration is lower than any administration in the history of our country …”
Despite what you may read about the president in the leftwing media, “The unemployment rates for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans have reached the lowest levels in history.” Again, this is something that should be roundly celebrated by all Americans of every political party. It is one of the most disappointing things to see so many Democrats in Congress not able to put their animosity toward the president aside, to celebrate these outstanding numbers.
“African-American youth unemployment has reached an all-time low. African-American poverty has declined to the lowest rate ever recorded. The unemployment rate for women reached the lowest level in almost 70 years — and last year, women filled 72 percent of all new jobs added. The veterans’ unemployment rate dropped to a record low. The unemployment rate for disabled Americans has reached an all-time low. Workers without a high school diploma have achieved the lowest unemployment rate recorded in United States history. A record number of young Americans are now employed.”
On and on, the good news delivered by the president at this year’s State of the Union Address brought a sense of optimism and hope for every American. He spoke of an agenda that is “relentlessly pro-worker, pro-family, pro-growth, and, most of all, pro-American.”
The president spoke of his support for school choice. Something most mothers, regardless of political party, strongly support. “No parent should be forced to send their child to a failing government school,” he emphasized, “Every young person should have a safe and secure environment in which to learn and grow.”
The president, once again, expressed his commitment to fighting for the dignity of every human life. One of his guests that he addressed was 2-year old Ellie Schneider who was born at just 21 weeks, weighing just a pound. “Ellie reminds us that every child is a miracle of life,” the president said, highlighting the many in Congress who believe the life of Ellie and other babies just like her, is simply a woman’s choice. The President asked for “an additional $50 million to fund neo-natal research for America’s youngest patients.” This is an important step since the lie of abortion is being destroyed with every new scientific discovery. “That is also why I am calling upon the Members of Congress here tonight to pass legislation finally banning the late-term abortion of babies,” he continued. Again, this is something, all Americans, pro-life or pro-choice should be able to stand behind. Ellie’s life, right there in the halls of Congress, was a testimony to truth. As the president concluded, “Whether we are Republican, Democrat, or Independent, surely we must all agree that every human life is a sacred gift from God!”
The president highlighted the progress made in stabilizing our court system with the confirmation of, “a record number of 187 new Federal judges to uphold our Constitution as written … [including] two brilliant new Supreme Court Justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.”
The success of judicial nominations brought the president to mention one of our most important issues at Concerned Women for America (CWA). The president said:
My Administration is also defending religious liberty, and that includes the Constitutional right to pray in public schools. In America, we do not punish prayer. We do not tear down crosses. We do not ban symbols of faith. We do not muzzle preachers and pastors. In America, we celebrate faith. We cherish religion. We lift our voices in prayer, and we raise our sights to the Glory of God!
All these are not mere talking points for the President. His administration is implementing these freedom-supporting ideals that have made America great since our birth. It is no wonder that the President’s agenda is also thriving as he follows the principles of our founding.
And that is how the President ended his historic address. With an inspiring ode to our founding principles:
We are Americans. We are the pioneers. We are the pathfinders. We settled the new world, we built the modern world, and we changed history forever by embracing the eternal truth that everyone is made equal by the hand of Almighty God.
America is the place where anything can happen! America is the place where anyone can rise. And here, on this land, on this soil, on this continent, the most incredible dreams come true!
This Nation is our canvas, and this country is our masterpiece. We look at tomorrow and see unlimited frontiers just waiting to be explored. Our brightest discoveries are not yet known. Our most thrilling stories are not yet told. Our grandest journeys are not yet made. The American Age, the American Epic, the American Adventure, has only just begun!
Our spirit is still young; the sun is still rising; God’s grace is still shining, and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come!
Will today be the end of the partisan impeachment trial of President Donald Trump? Or will the U.S. Senate vote to prolong the charade for months by allowing for more witnesses? Mario Diaz, Esq., Concerned Women for America’s General Counsel brings you the latest impeachment briefing discussing what happened yesterday and what we can expect today.
Remember, your Senators need to hear from you. Click here to write and call them to ask them to end the impeachment today. Today is a critical decision point and your voice is incredibly important. Even if you have two Democrat Senators that you think won’t listen, they need to hear from you. We have made it very easy for you, click here and make your voice count.
The highlight of day two was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court John Roberts’ refusal to ask a question by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). Some speculated it was because Sen. Paul would identify the whistleblower. But Sen. Paul released the content of his question, surprising the media. Take a look:
Sen. @RandPaul: “My question made no reference to any whistleblower…”
As you can hear, though Sen. Paul mentions some names in his question, he does not mention the whistleblower. He argued his question goes to the motive for impeachment, which is something we have talked about since the beginning.
It seems incontestable that a group of liberal operatives actively looked to impeach the president since before he was sworn into office. This is a matter of public record. Because of that, a discussion into the people involved in starting this whole process would seem highly relevant to try to assess the validity of the arguments being presented.
Whatever the case, the Chief Justice, as the presiding officer made the call and it cannot be challenged at the moment. Perhaps a discussion might be in order tomorrow when the Senate will entertain a series of motions that will determine the direction of the trial going forward.
That is why it is imperative that you call and write to your Senators today! Click here to visit our Impeachment Central, where we give you all the information you need to unite your voice to the hundreds of thousands of CWA supporters around the country.
And be sure to check out our latest impeachment briefing below:
The first day of questions is in the books, one more day to go, and then a slew of motions to extend the trial will follow. Mario Diaz, Chief Counsel for Concerned Women for America and Doreen Denny, VP for Government Relations, explain why it is in the country’s best interest to end the trial now. Watch to hear what you can do to put an end to this partisan impeachment charade.