Part III is scheduled for release on May 6 at 3PM on Facebook Live. Be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live! And let others know about it.
CWA’s Vice President of Government Relations, Doreen Denny penned the following opinion piece published on CNSnews.com highlighting Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, arguing the definition of sex in federal civil rights law in the context of employment. Doreen argues that the Justices should consider DOJ’s recent conclusions about the impact of gender identity-based claims on women in a Connecticut sports case in their deliberations.
“The Supreme Court announced it will resume oral arguments by teleconference in May. Several high-profile cases are being decided and opinions in these cases are sure to break through the latest news of the coronavirus pandemic.
Among them is Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, arguing the definition of sex in federal civil rights law in the context of employment. If the Court rules sex under Title VII includes “gender identity,” it would effectively rewrite federal law and invalidate policies and practices which treat men as male and women as female.
The Justices would do well to consider DOJ’s recent conclusions about the impact of gender identity-based claims on women in a Connecticut sports case in their deliberations in Harris.
Late last month, Attorney General William Barr signed a Statement of Interest in the federal case about the meaning of sex and equal opportunities in women’s sports. Three Connecticut high school female track athletes have been forced under state athletic association policy to compete against male runners identifying as girls.
Connecticut officials have rejected the concerns of female athletes, claiming federal law compels them to allow students to compete according to the gender with which they identify. Racing against males with built-in physical advantage, the female plaintiffs have lost opportunities to excel in their sport, including state and regional titles.
But, in a 13-page statement, the Department of Justice (DOJ) flatly rejects the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) claim that Title IX requires classifying transgender students according to their perceived gender, not their biological sex:
“Title IX and its implementing regulations prohibit discrimination solely ‘on the basis of sex,’ not on the basis of transgender status, and therefore neither require nor authorize CIAC’s transgender policy. To the contrary, CIAC’s construction of Title IX as requiring the participation of students on athletic teams that reflect their gender identity would turn the statute on its head.”
Barr’s statement offers multiple reasons why dismissing “on the basis of sex” as binary and immutable would be fallacy and should move us a step closer to protecting an equal playing field for every female student athlete in America:
- Physiological differences between the sexes matter in protecting equal opportunity.”
Part II of the series is scheduled for release on April 22 at 3PM on Facebook Live. So be sure to follow us on Facebook so you can be notified to join us live!
Washington, D.C. — Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), made the following statement after the U.S. Department of Justice led by Attorney General William Barr filed a Statement of Interest in federal court against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference for their policy that forces female athletes to compete against male athletes identifying as girls. Plaintiffs in the case are three high school female athletes who have faced sex discrimination as they sought to excel in track at their schools.
“The Attorney General and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have taken a crucial step in the right direction to protect women’s sports. Concerned Women for America and our allies fighting to protect equal opportunities for female athletes have been waiting for them to speak. Female athletes are being sidelined by a culture that refuses to stand up to this injustice. Our daughters deserve better. It’s time for the Administration to act and for the court to get it right.
“CWA has been calling on the Trump Administration to make clear that Title IX’s prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex should prevent any male athlete identifying as a girl from competing in female sports. The reason is obvious. Biology tells us why. It’s been an uphill battle, but with this statement, we know they are listening.
“For this reason, CWA filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) against Franklin Pierce University for rostering a male transathlete on their women’s track team who won the 2019 NCAA national title in the women’s 400-meter hurdles. OCR has opened an investigation but has yet to rule.
CWA will continue to fight for the rights, dignity, and status of women and girls against an activism that wants to deny us a fair playing field.”
You might remember that Vought was viciously attacked for his Christian faith at his previous nomination hearings. Indeed, this reminds us the radical, anti-Christian left is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a front-runner for his party’s presidential nomination, who led the attack.
President Trump fights a more significant battle than just this nomination by appointing him. He fights for the liberties of all Americans, regardless 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!
June Medical Services v. Russo oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
This week the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case where abortionists are challenging a Louisiana law that requires they keep admitting privileges at nearby hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions.
Concerned Women for America (CWA) was there to represent you both inside the courtroom (where the arguments were happening) and outside (where dueling rallies represented the conflict for the media). Both settings presented us with the challenge of our time— an irrational, rabid, and extremely radical pro-abortion mob that promotes abortion as the ultimate good, rejecting even the most basic of parameters of human decency.
Recently, for example, the U.S. Senate rejected the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act which simply required doctors to provide standard medical care to a baby who is born alive after a botched abortion. That’s a baby who has already been born! But it didn’t matter to the pro-abortion loyalists, who unfortunately are many in the Senate. Today’s radical, pro-abortion syndicate cannot, will not, accept anything less than the celebration of abortion for any reason up to the point of birth (and beyond, depending on the desires of the mother), paid for and promoted by you and me, the taxpayers.
This radicalism was evident at oral arguments, too. Julie Rikelman, who represented June Medical Services, could not envision any circumstance in which a law requiring admitting privileges for abortionists could be constitutional. This is significant because, under the direct precedent of the Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which (erroneously) invalidated a Texas law, the Court’s inquiry is entirely fact-based depending on the specific situation of each state where a similar medical requirement is enacted.
Chief Justice Roberts tried to establish this simple fact as a starting point for further discussion but found no common ground from Ms. Rikelman.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, do you agree that the inquiry under Hellerstedt is a factual one that has to proceed state-by-state?
MS. RIKELMAN: Your Honor, I think that facts may vary, but what we know is that the district court held a trial here and found that there were no material differences between this case and –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no, I know, but if — if the issue, the statutes are on the books in other states, and if the issues are raised there, is the same inquiry required in each case? You have to have the district court examine the availability of specific clinics and the admitting privileges of doctors so that the litigation could be — the results could be different in different states?
MS. RIKELMAN: […] the burdens of a law may vary, but a law that has no benefits and doesn’t serve any valid state interest is much more likely to impose an undue burden.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, similarly, tried several different ways to ask for any scenario where a similar law could be upheld. If the law had no effect whatsoever on providers, could it be constitutional? The counsel for the abortionists danced around the issue as much as she could, but she was ultimately pushed to admit that they could never be constitutional.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Can I follow up on the Chief Justice’s earlier question and mine as well? Are you saying that admitting privileges laws are always unconstitutional, such that we don’t have to look at the facts in — state by state? Or are you saying that actually you do look at the facts state by state, and in some states, admitting privileges laws could be constitutional, if they impose no burdens?
MS. RIKELMAN: Your Honor, the burdens may vary, but a law that has no benefit and serves no valid state interest, which is what this Court held in Whole Woman’s Health, is much more likely to be an undue burden.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Could an admitting privileges law of this kind ever have a valid purpose, in your view?
MS. RIKELMAN: No, Your Honor.
Abortion extremists give not an inch. They demand no limits on abortion. Even accepted medical standards must be surrendered at the altar of “choice.”
In this case, Louisiana asks this same requirement of all doctors that perform outpatient procedures in the state. But somehow, according to “Big Abortion,” abortionists must be exempt from it.
Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was surprised by this fact as she approached the topic with Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about a D&C after a miscarriage? As I understand it, these two procedures are very much alike. Are similar regulations, about 30 miles, and admitting privileges applicable to a D&C following a miscarriage?
MS. MURRILL: Under the ambulatory surgery center regs, yes. Under the office practice regs which do not regulate abortion clinics, a doctor who doesn’t have a — have a residency in the proper scope of care would have to have admitting privileges and would have to have them within a 30-mile radius of — of the clinic. So, it’s the same requirement.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: It is the same?
MS. MURRILL: Yes.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I thought there was something in the record suggesting there was no such requirement for D&C following a miscarriage.
She thought wrong. Louisiana’s law is meant to protect women. The women of Louisiana supported it and helped pass it. According to a Knights of Columbus-Marist poll, 71 percent of women (both pro-life and pro-choice women) want doctors who perform abortions to be required to have hospital admitting privileges. But Big Abortion ignores women when it is inconvenient to their narrative. To them, that law is simply an attack on its bottom line. Abortion profits motivate them, not women’s safety.
Let us pray the Court sees right through this conflict of interest and stands with the women of Louisiana by upholding this law. A decision is expected this summer.
One of our amazing Young Women for America college chapter presidents, Lillian Knight, LSU, participated in the Protect Women, Protect Life rally on the steps of the Supreme Court fighting to uphold a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting procedures. She is quoted in the article in National Review.
“On the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning, hundreds of demonstrators gathered as the justices heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first abortion-related case on the docket since Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.
The case was brought by abortion providers against the state of Louisiana, challenging a law that requires them to maintain admitting privileges at a local hospital so women can get emergency care if necessary after a failed abortion procedure. Louisiana law currently requires the same of all other ambulatory surgical centers in the state; the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act aims to hold abortionists to the same standard.
Sources who attended oral arguments told National Review that seven of the nine justices asked questions. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were the two who did not.
Outside the Court, meanwhile, both the abortion-rights movement and pro-life advocates hosted rallies all morning, standing right beside each other underneath a perfectly blue and sunny sky, the abortion-rights crowd swathed in teal and the pro-lifers in a lighter shade of blue.
“My right, my decision,” read most of the signs on the pro-choice side. The signs were printed, and the rally coordinated, by the Center for Reproductive Rights, the abortion-advocacy group that argued against the Louisiana law this morning, representing June Medical Services and two unnamed abortionists.
One of the most prominent speakers for the abortion-rights rally was Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), who directed part of his remarks at Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. “They’re taking away fundamental rights,” he said. “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Representative Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) also addressed the pro-choice crowd, opening her remarks by suggesting that “they are obsessed with our bodies,” as well as that abortion is an issue of “economic justice” and “racial justice.”
“We have every frickin’ right to fight for our lives and our bodies,” Tlaib said. Most of the remarks from speakers at the pro-choice rally didn’t touch on the substance of the Louisiana law at all, or they falsely claimed that it was intended to restrict access to abortion. But in fact, in a decision upholding the statute last fall, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “the only permissible finding, under this record, is that no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act.”
Much of the abortion-rights rally centered around common slogans such as permitting or trusting women to control their own bodies.
A poster that one of the abortion-rights demonstrators held read, “Hey Kavanaugh, keep your religion out of my health care. And yea, we still believe Dr. Blasey Ford.” Another, much larger sign said, “Thank God for abortion.”
On the pro-life side of the divide, meanwhile, most signs read, “Protect women, protect life.” The remarks from the slate of speakers in defense of Louisiana’s law focused almost entirely on the law itself, as well as the goal of ensuring that women are able to get emergency care.
Katrina Jackson, the Louisiana Democrat who sponsored the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, addressed the pro-life crowd after exiting the Court following the hearing. “For so long, this nation has put the abortion industry before the health and safety of the women,” she said.
“We will no longer be quiet, because we love the child, and we love the woman. And Louisiana is all about love, even when someone doesn’t agree with us,” Jackson added. “We seek to protect them in their decisions. We seek to hold others accountable, and especially when a billion-dollar industry makes money off of that woman’s decision, they should be held accountable just as other doctors who treat us for other things.”
One young woman from Louisiana, who serves as a campus leader for Concerned Women for America, spoke to the group close to the end of the rally. “Twenty-two years ago, my mom went to a Louisiana Planned Parenthood seeking to know what her options were because she was in a crisis pregnancy,” she said. “She had no support from anybody in my family or from my biological father. They told her that my life was not worth anything and that her only option was to abort me, that she would not be successful in life, that she could not get an education, and that I would essentially ruin her life. Twenty-two years later, I think she begs to differ.””
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.
Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s General Counsel, and Doreen Denny, VP of Government Relations, bring you the latest on acquittal day on the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.
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!
Here is the speech in its entirety:
Mario Diaz, Esq., CWA’s General Counsel, and Doreen Denny, VP of Government Relations, continue their analysis of the latest news on the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump.
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.
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…”
He then reads the question.
“I think this is an important question. One that deserves to be asked.” pic.twitter.com/D2iafDrv4X
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 30, 2020
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.
It is maddening to try to follow the liberal’s “AstroTurf” outrage about President Trump’s supposed impeachable conduct. Everything they allege President Trump of doing the Democrats have unquestionably done themselves.
The Russia hoax was their first attempt. “He colluded with the Russians to interfere with the election,” they yelled. Only, it turns out the Mueller Report found no evidence of this. In fact, what we found is that liberals had conspired to produce the infamous fake Russian dossier and used it to abuse our judicial system to violate candidate Trump’s civil rights.
The FBI has now actually apologized for the abuse of power as outlined in the recent Inspector General report where the FBI actually falsified documents in order to continue its illegal investigation of candidate Trump.
It is painful to watch Adam Schiff, the mastermind behind the impeachment, talk about the scandal that is President Trump withholding “vital lethal aid” to Ukraine for a couple of weeks. But then you find out that President Obama never gave the aid during his entire time in office. President Trump actually gave the aid and only delayed further future assistance for a few weeks. The Ukrainians didn’t even know there was a delay until the press created the scandal.
They went on and on for weeks about the “quid pro quo,” the worst kind of impeachable offense in their mind. Then you see a clip of Joe Biden bragging about the tactic during the Obama Administration. They have spent millions of dollars investigating President Trump’s alleged quid pro quo, with nothing to show, but somehow to investigate the Biden incident is beyond the pale.
This impeachment is a joke. It will forever be a stain on our country and especially on the Democrats who have engaged in the worst kind of political manipulation of the American people.
Today, as the first day of questions is underway, we have seen more of the same political theater. No minds are being changed. They are playing to the cameras. Which is to say, they are playing you and me, the viewers—the American people.
Enough is enough. It’s time to end this fake impeachment.
Let your voice be heard. Visit CWA’s Impeachment Central and let your senator know what you think about this impeachment. Tell them it is time to put an end to this charade and get back to the business of the people.
And be sure to check out today’s briefing for more on what is taking place in the Senate: