Category

National Sovereignty

U.S. Relationship with World Health Organization will be Determined by This Year’s Presidential Election

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

Figure 1: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) provides Coronavirus updates at the WHO daily press conference on June 7, 2020


By Jaelyn Morgan, Intern for Concerned Women for America’s Department of International Affairs

On Tuesday, spokesman Stéphane Dujarric confirmed the United States has officially notified U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres of its intended withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) effective July 6, 2021.

Rumors of withdrawal began in April, continuing up to President Donald Trump’s announcement for termination of the U.S. relationship with WHO on May 29, 2020. The withdrawal process will take about one year, making this November’s 2020 presidential election the determining factor for whether the U.S completes withdrawal or rejoins the WHO as an active Member State. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden tweeted that he would have the U.S. rejoin WHO on his first day as President.

As explained in a previous CWALAC article, the decision to defund WHO and terminate the bilateral relationship it shares with the U.S. is wholly justified under the principles of national sovereignty. Despite all its resources, WHO has not succeeded in preventing or slowing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and has acquiesced to China at the expense of other nations.

The recent interim report released by the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic revealed the Chinese Communist Party deliberately covered up the Coronavirus. CWA’s Vice President of International Affairs, Dr. Shea Garrison, pointed out in April in the Daily Caller that the “Chinese government’s initial denial, secretly quashing warnings from Chinese medical personnel, and silencing whistleblowers, contributed to at least a 5-week delay in addressing the coronavirus.” In addition, she noted  “if the Chinese government had acted 3-weeks earlier, the number of early cases world-wide could have been reduced by 95%.”

WHO accommodated China’s faulty reports, directly violating International Health Regulations and obligations toward its Member States. The U.S. has the sovereign right to end its relationship with the WHO in light of their failure to do their job, especially since their shortcomings have directly resulted in an unchecked pandemic that continues to take American lives.

Despite this, Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-New York), Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, remains strongly against withdrawing from the WHO, stating, “Deflecting blame onto the WHO won’t reverse the administration’s mistakes or undo the suffering our country has endured.” Moreover, the U.S. continues to be a Member State of the WHO, though technically “inactive,” and continues to collaborate with the organization on multiple fronts for scientific, technical, and medical advances.

Both Democrat and Republican politicians have voiced dissent for U.S. withdrawal. In the New York Times, Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas) wrote, “International coalitions are essential to fighting global challenges; we should be strengthening our alliances, not dismantling them.” This cautious approach was echoed by conservative leaders such as Brett D. Shaefer of the Heritage Foundation, who stated, “If the WHO does not reform, the U.S. may have no choice but to withdraw and seek to establish an alternative organization to address global pandemics…[but] Far better to try to rally support for reforming the World Health Organization first, even if it takes longer than 30 days.”

Additionally, PEW Research Center discovered that Americans were split along party lines in their perception of the WHO’s handling of the Coronavirus. Fifty-one percent of Republican or Republican leaning citizens rated WHO’s handling of the virus as “only fair/poor,” with 28% calling it “Good/excellent.” In contrast, Democrat or Democratic learning citizens rated WHO with 36% “only fair/poor” and 62% “good/excellent.”

Debates concerning the legal viability of a withdrawal have been highly contested, and rightly so. According to the 1948 act of Congress, the U.S. needs to give a one-year notice before officially withdrawing from the WHO and must fulfill any financial obligations for “the Organization’s current fiscal year.” However, Congress did not specifically appropriate funds to WHO in their Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (2020), causing some to argue that there is leeway for the President’s discretion on how to spend appropriations toward international organizations. Yet, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations just released an appropriation of $200 million for WHO for the upcoming 2021 fiscal year. This conflicting legislation demonstrates America’s internal division over the issue of withdrawing from WHO.

There are also legitimate concerns that withdrawing from WHO will be harmful for global health aid, vaccine research, and the sharing of international medical information. However, the U.S. continues to “lead the Global Response to COVID-19,”  and, as of June 26, the U.S. has pledged international COVID-19 relief aid upwards of $1 billion. For the U.S., continuing to provide personalized aid to developing nations will not be hindered by this withdrawal.

In regard to the other objections, a proposition to create a pandemic prevention organization based in the United States is already underway. On May 21, Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) introduced S. 3829, a bill known as the Global Health Security and Diplomacy Act of 2020 (GHSDA). This bill had its first senate hearing on June 18 and continues to progress through the legislative process this year. Among numerous provisions, GHSDA will “advance global health security and diplomacy objectives” and empower countries to respond to infectious diseases before they become pandemics. The bill enables the United States to develop a comprehensive, inter-agency strategy toward these objectives, establishes a method of membership for other nations, and creates a Trust Fund for Global Health Security to finance international aid, research, and development.

Effective withdrawal from the World Health Organization will take time. Creating an alternative organization to the WHO will also take time. However, great work is being done to accomplish both objectives. The U.S continues to set the standard for international COVID-19 relief. Moreover, the U.S. adheres to International Health Regulations and respects the national sovereignty of other nations, items the WHO has demonstrably disregarded for the sake of its political agenda. As Elyssa Koren from Alliance Defending Freedom International stated in Newsweek, “Why go through the WHO, when the U.S. can award assistance itself, thereby increasing its sphere of influence?”

The 2020 U.S. presidential election is critical in determining the future course of this action. Who we vote for matters. Although, multiple considerations contribute toward deciding for whom one will vote, funding and participating with the World Health Organization should be a key consideration. Will we continue to work with the corrupted, politicized World Health Organization, or will we invest in an alternative solution that values transparency, efficacy, and national sovereignty?

May we vote wisely, never losing sight of American values and never compromising such values to cooperate with international bodies who disregard them.

CWA Celebrates Independence Day

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

On July 4, 1776, 244 years ago, after Congress voted for a complete separation from Great Britain, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence declaring these beautiful self-evident truths: “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today, we continue to be the longest on-going Constitutional Republic in the history of the world.

And that is no accident.  John Adams said it best as he meditated on what they had done.  He said this day “ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to Almighty God.”

From Penny Nance and the staff at Concerned Women for America, we wish you a Happy Independence Day!

Defunding World Health Organization is Necessary; Here’s Why

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

By Jaelyn Morgan, Intern for the Department of International Affairs, Concerned Women for America

Wall Street Journal could not have phrased it any better, “What good is a global health agency that won’t tell the truth about a pandemic?”[1] Yet, controversy still surrounds the recent announcement made by President Trump to defund the World Health Organization (WHO) due to its untimely and China-biased response to COVID-19. Some say the reaction is extreme. Others claim WHO is corrupted beyond repair. The question remains: is this policy worth supporting? Or is the U.S. withdrawing from an organization at the time the world needs it the most?

The World Health Organization is a branch of the United Nations responsible for communicating internationally relevant medical information to its Member States all across the globe. In light of their failure to properly convey information about the Coronavirus, it is no wonder the Trump Administration decided to write it off. On April 15, 2020, the White House released a fact sheet containing specific accusations of misconduct against WHO, criticizing the organization for its slow response to the Coronavirus and calling it to engage in total structural reform to ensure transparency, data sharing, accountability, and impartiality.[2]

On May 29, 2020, President Trump officially announced that the U.S. would terminate its relationship with WHO and redirect U.S. annual funding of $450 million dollars to “other worldwide and deserving, urgent, global public health needs.”[3] Justification for this measure was China’s “total control over World Health Organization,” and consequent action to “[pressure] the World Health Organization to mislead the world when the [Coronavirus] was first discovered by Chinese authorities.” The ensuing weeks resulted in a mixed reaction from both sides of the political aisle. However, this wakeup call toward WHO might not only have been necessary, but inevitable.

The political nature of a global entity makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make any “neutral” decisions. Even WHO’s objectively “good” goal of “building a better, healthier future for people all over the world,”[4] does not make it a completely neutral entity which promotes what is best for humankind. Why? Each nation represented in WHO comes from a complex socio-cultural background with their own worldview and priorities. These worldviews inevitably clash due to significant variations in what each perceives as real, good, or best.

The World Health Organization is biased on many of its policies and recommendations. For example, a central aspect of WHO’s reproductive health initiative is the promotion and facilitation of abortion services. This objective is cleverly disguised under rhetoric advocating for “women’s rights” on the grounds of “realizing a women’s right to decide the spacing and timing of her children.”[5] Yet, this failure toward neutrality is exposed in its complete disregard for the pro-life argument against abortion on the grounds that it violates the human rights of an unborn child. WHO’s Reproductive Health Strategy explicitly states that “urgent actions are needed … to the extent allowed by law, provision of safe abortion services … [and] providing abortion services at primary health care level.”[6] Again, their progressive healthcare agenda is revealed in the claim that “access to safe, legal abortion is a critical reproductive healthcare service.”[7]

In addition, WHO’s explicitly progressive goal of advancing abortion across the globe demonstrates its profound lack of understanding and respect for national sovereignty. Their one-sided agenda reveals bias against nations who are culturally pro-life, as their publications demonstrate that WHO views such nations as oppressive entities which must provide “safe abortion” services to show that they support women.

For the United States, defunding the World Health Organization and using the funds to help other like-minded entities instead is a good decision. If an organization such as WHO cannot be neutral, there is no sense in funding it, especially since it has become clear that WHO has been acquiescing to the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the health and well-being of other nations. The United States does, and hopefully always will, stand for democracy, freedom, and national sovereignty. This can be accomplished by withdrawing from WHO and determining as a nation which like-minded organizations we ought to support amid this worldwide pandemic.


[1] The Editorial board, “How WHO Really Feels About China,” Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-who-really-feels-about-china-11591226923.

[2] “President Donald J. Trump Is Demanding Accountability From the World Health Organization,” Fact Sheets: Healthcare, The White House, April 15, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-demanding-accountability-world-health-organization/.

[3] “Remarks by President Trump on Actions Against China,” Remarks: National Security & Defense, May 30, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-actions-china/.

[4] “About WHO,” World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/about.

[5] “Abortion” Overview, World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/health-topics/abortion#tab=tab_1.

[6] World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, “Reproductive health strategy to accelerate progress towards the attainment of international development goals and targets,” May, 2004, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/68754/WHO_RHR_04.8.pdf.

[7] Bearak, Jonathan Marc, Anna Popinchalk, Gilda Sedgh, et al., “Pregnancies, abortions, and pregnancy intentions: a protocol for modeling and reporting global, regional and country estimates,” Reproductive Health 16, no. 36, (March 2019), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0682-0.

 

Justice, Not Chaos Needed for a More Perfect Union

By | Culture, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Politics/National Sovereignty, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

CWA has signed onto the below Conservative Action Project’s (CAP) Memo for the Movement entitled “Justice, Not Chaos Needed for a More Perfect Union.”

“Conservatives are confronting a country at unrest. Peaceful demonstrations over the unjustified murder of George Floyd have turned violent, exploited by individuals and organizations using Floyd’s death to pursue their own agenda of social conflict and destruction.
Some of the videos of the unrest all over America during the last ten days clearly show some protesters breaking the law by looting, for their own gain and, apparently, their own great amusement. Are we to condemn all protesters because of the few arsonists and looters?”
CWA socialism lesson

The Truth About Socialism Lesson 1

By | CWAACP, Education, International, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Socialism | No Comments

 

Do you want to understand what socialism is and how it impacts society? Or, how to respond to socialist promises like – Free Stuff! – healthcare and college? This lessons by Concerned Women for America’s Vice President of International Affairs Dr. Shea Garrison will help you understand why this seemingly benign philosophy has been disastrous wherever it has been implemented. This is part 1 in a series presented by the CWA Academy for Conservative Principles.

Click here for a digital copy of the booklet referenced in the lesson.

U.S. National Intelligence Priority: WHO Director-General’s Ties to Communist China

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

CWA’s Vice President of International Affairs, Dr. Shea Garrison, wrote the following op-ed published on CNS News.

“In his Senate confirmation hearing last week, Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), remarked that the Chinese authoritarian regime is working diligently “to supplant us as the world’s superpower.”

The fact that Communist China strategically orchestrates its goal of world domination by infiltrating, influencing, and funding organizations and leaders in the U.S. and around the world, should be taken very seriously by U.S. national intelligence.

Although the extent of the World Health Organization’s collaboration with China is still to be determined, investigation is warranted into WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party — ties which may be critically relevant to the early spread of coronavirus and which are still potentially dangerous.

During Tedros’ campaign for WHO director general, the Ethiopian Registrar made a series of allegations in an article called “Why TPLF is Desperately Fighting for Dr. Tedros to be the Next DG of the WHO.” The TPLF, or Tigray People’s Liberation Front, is an historically Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party which ruled under cover of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front during Tedros’ time as minister of foreign affairs. Tedros is one of the nine executive members or “politburo” of the TPLF.

Read Dr. Garrison’s Entire Piece Here:

Penny Nance on SOTU: Trump Shined Light on America’s Renewed Greatness

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events, Press Releases | No Comments

WASHINGTONPenny Nance, CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, issues the following statement praising President Trump’s third State of the Union Address, titled “The Great American Comeback”:

“Only one word describes the state of our Union under President Trump — stellar!

The president’s speech shined much-needed light on America’s renewed greatness, a comeback the media has ignored in favor of anti-Trump controversies. The economy is booming with 7 million jobs and record unemployment. Gains have been made to protect unborn life. The right of every American to freely practice their faith without government intrusion has been defended. One hundred eighty-seven Constitutionalist judges and two Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed and will defend the Constitution for decades to come. We’re finally treating our friend Israel as an ally and moved our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Our borders are defended against terrorists and drug cartels. Despots and bad actors across the globe respect and fear America again, and trust our red lines.

There is no doubt America is experiencing the blessing of renewal, and President Trump’s leadership has been, frankly, unimpeachable.”

CWA Responds to the Killing of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

A message from CEO and President Penny Nance:

Most likely, you have been following the U.S. military action taken against Iranian terrorist Qassem Suleimani but I wanted you to have specific talking points, history, and prayer points. This is a major foreign policy event that could have very serious implications for U.S. policy in everything from Energy to Defense.

Please pray for Secretary Pompeo, the President, and our military as they walk through what could become a crisis situation should it continue to escalate.  Remember, Iran is desperate, and its economy is in tatters due to U.S. sanctions. They are on the cusp of another revolution and to unite behind war with the “Great Satan” would suit the Ayatollah Khomeini just fine. Many experts hope that cooler heads will prevail. Much of this can be laid at the feet of the Obama Administration who had a policy of appeasement against the terrorist regime culminating with a $150 billion pay off.

I encourage you to look at news clips from when the Iranians stormed our embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, and held them for 444 days until after President Reagan was inaugurated in January of 1981. President Trump was right to take this head-on. President Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” is still true.

Click here to read CWA’s talking points on key information concerning the U.S. drone attack that killed Iranian General Qassem Suleimani.

Finally, below is the email I sent to Secretary Pompeo this morning.

Mr. Secretary,

CWA is 100% supportive of the President’s decision to retaliate against Soleimani and his murderous thug entourage. History has taught us that appeasement only emboldens terrorists and fascist dictators. We are calling on our members to cover you, President Trump, and our military leaders in prayer. We are also sending out talking points today to our entire list and planning a phone briefing with state leaders and supporters as early as Monday. I have been active on Twitter and will continue to give support.  Please let me know if there is anything else we can do. Mostly, I just wanted you and your team to know we have your backs both through prayer and action.

House Condemns BDS, but Will Not Act on Bipartisan Sentiment to Advance Anti-Semitism Legislation

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events, Religious Liberty, Support for Israel | No Comments

This week the House expressed opposition to the anti-Semitic BDS Movement by passing H. Res. 246, “Opposing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement targeting Israel.” The vote on the resolution was 398-17 with 5 voting present.

This is a good first step, but further action is needed in the House for there to be any meaningful impact. The next step is to pass H.R. 336, which contains the Combatting BDS Act of 2019 and passed out of the Senate as S. 1 by a vote of 77-23 reflecting significant bipartisan support.

A resolution, H. Res or S. Res, expresses a sense or sentiment of Congress. It is a way for Congress to take a position without passing actual law. There is no action resulting from a resolution. A bill, titled H.R. or S., is legislation that if passed, becomes law—it has teeth where a resolution does not.

It is helpful that the House is on record against the BDS movement, but we need the House to do more than say BDS is bad; they need to take a stand and do something about it.

And that something is passing H.R. 336, a bill that mirrors the Senate-passed S.1, which was the top priority of the Senate in the 116th Congress. This legislation affirms states have the ability to choose not to do business with entities that participate in the BDS Movement. It provides legitimacy for states to enact anti-BDS legislation and ensure tax dollars aren’t going to entities participating in a movement that contradicts the foreign policy interests of the United States. States make their own laws regarding BDS; this just equips them to do so.

Despite the statement of opposition to BDS, Speaker Pelosi has been unwilling to bring H.R. 336 to the House floor. Republicans are using a procedural tactic called a discharge petition to try and force a vote. The petition needs a majority of the House, 218 votes, to bring H.R. 336 to the floor for a vote. It is puzzling that with 348 members opposing BDS with H. Res. 246, only 196 have signed the petition to take action and combat BDS by passing H.R. 336.

We are calling on Congress to take the next step and translate the high level of bipartisan cooperation standing against the BDS Movement into action by supporting and passing H.R. 336.  Please urge your member to sign the discharge petition opposing anti-Semitism.  Thank them if they already have.  To see the list of members who have signed, click here.

Why doesn’t every persecuted group get a flag at US embassies?

By | International, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Politics/National Sovereignty, Religious Issues, Religious Liberty | No Comments

June is designated LGBT Pride Month, and rainbows are displayed on everywhere from T-shirts to restaurant chains to the Uber app. Even with all the gay pride flags, parades, and recognition the LGBT community receives in the U.S. during June, the Left is still not satisfied. They demand that the rainbow flag be flown over U.S. embassies abroad.

Look at this practice that’s been in place since the Obama administration — President Barack Obama actively promoted the LGBT community not just domestically but also internationally through the U.N., State Department, and U.S. Agency for International Development.

First, we should recognize that the LGBT community does have reasons for fear. Their human rights are violated around the world through harassment, killings, beatings, and imprisonment, and homosexuality is criminalized in at least 73 countries. In Tanzania, laws against homosexuality carry a sentence of up to 30 years, and authorities have been accused by human rights groups of subjecting suspected homosexuals to “forced anal exams.” And who could forget the horrific 2015 images of ISIS pushing gay men off buildings to their death? There are other incidents equally as evil, and the U.S. must stand firmly against these insidious abuses.

We should all agree that addressing human rights abuses around the world must be a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy. But why is one group singled out and others ignored?

Click here to read the rest of this op-ed as featured in the Washington Examiner.

Top Faith Leaders Predict Evangelicals Will Show Up in Force for Trump in 2020

By | Family Issues, Feminist / Women's Issues, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Politics/National Sovereignty, Religious Issues, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life, Social / Cultural Issues | No Comments

CEO and President Penny Nance is featured in The Western Journal along with other top faith leaders such as Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer.

“Some of the nation’s top Christian leaders believe President Donald Trump will once again enjoy the strong backing of evangelicals in 2020, noting he now has a record, and not just promises, to run on.

The Western Journal spoke with Rev. Franklin Graham, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance, American Values president Gary Bauer and Christian Broadcasting Network chief political analyst David Brody to gauge their views on why Trump enjoyed such strong evangelical support in 2016, and how he looks with these voters going into the 2020 election.”

Read the entire article here:

How Trump’s Conservative UN Social Policies Strengthen Foreign Relations

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events, United Nations | No Comments

According to recent news reports, the Trump administration has instructed U.S. delegates to the United Nations to replace the term “sexual reproductive health” with those like “reproduction and the related health services” and the word “gender” with “woman” in documents and negotiations. These reports (and a resulting letter from members of Congress) stem from “leaked” State Department memos and warn that striking these terms will damage U.S.-foreign relations, hinder access to health care, oppress women’s rights, and “define transgender people out of existence.” These reports are at best misinformed about U.S. development aid and foreign relations and at worst sounding yet another false alarm to continue Obama’s legacy of “progressive” social ideology in U.S. foreign policy.

Click here to read the rest of this column as featured on The Federalist.

Strengthening our Borders and Fixing our Broken Immigration Laws

By | Blog, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Press Releases, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

The following is a statement made by Mrs. Beverly LaHaye, Concerned Women for America’s Founder and Chairwoman; Penny Nance, CWA’s CEO and President; and CWA’s board members, Jean Crisp, Janne Myrdal, Ann Hettinger, Lori Scheck, Terri Johannessen, Betty Jane Strong, Cheryl Keithly, Angel Voggenreiter, and Jon Whetsell:

“Concerned Women for America (CWA), the largest public policy organization for women in the country, calls on Congress to break through political pride and work together to secure our borders with appropriate and effective means and fix our broken immigration laws.

“As a sovereign nation, it is the duty and right of the U.S. to secure our borders and protect our people. Groups who have encouraged mass and disorganized migration to our borders are manipulating and exploiting vulnerable people for political gain and unduly burden our U.S. Border Patrol. During the journey, almost 1 in 3 women have been sexually abused and many have fallen prey to violence or human trafficking.

“Both parties acknowledge the system must be fixed, and President Trump is more than willing to take on this difficult task. The status quo is hurting both citizens and immigrants. It’s time to stop the political games and work for the good of the country.”


For an interview with Penny Nance, contact Annabelle Rutledge at [email protected] or 916-792-3973.

Senators’ bigotry threatens all believers – The left gets closer to stifling public expressions of faith

By | National Sovereignty, News and Events, Religious Liberty, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Quick — somebody please remind Democratic Senators Kamala Harris (D-California) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) that they’re members of what’s supposed to be the tolerant party. Based on the bigoted questions they recently posed to a judicial nominee, they may think that Democrats are the heirs of the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing party.

Sens. Harris and Hirono challenged federal judicial nominee Brian Buescher about his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, an international Catholic charitable organization with nearly two million members. What, specifically, are the senators upset about? That the Catholic organization espouses the teachings of the Catholic Church. How dare it!

Sen. Harris asked the nominee whether he agreed with the leader of the Knights, who once said that abortion is “the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.” Somebody should tell her that Pope Francis recently compared abortion doctors to hitmen.

The senator’s question reflects an alarming trend among Democratic politicians: the desire to root out any speck of religious belief that may threaten the Holy Grail of the Left, abortion-on-demand. And what Sen. Harris seeks to do with questions like this is force underground anyone — not just Catholics — with religious objections to abortion.

Sen. Hirono, whose biggest campaign committee contributor was the pro-abortion group EMILY’S List, even went so far as to ask Buescher if he would discontinue his affiliation with the Knights. “If confirmed,” she asked, “do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?”

What’s the objective? The senator’s goal is to obstruct and defeat every white, male, conservative judicial nominee of the Trump administration. That was fully on display during the Kavanaugh confirmation when she demanded that every male just “shut up.” Even if this is her objective, and even if she is a woman, religious bigotry should not be tolerated.

As for Sen. Harris, she has 2020 White House aspirations. She would do well to recognize that being on the left edge of the West Coast is far from middle America. Any pathway to 2020 still takes you through Iowa — and neighboring Nebraska for that matter.

Buescher would have been in the right to blast both senators for these questions. Instead, he calmly explained that “judge[s] must decide cases and apply the law, not advocate for one side or the other in a legal proceeding.” Simply put, his faith and religiously affiliated volunteerism has no bearing on his ability to faithfully execute the duties of a federal judge. For Harris and Hirono to insinuate otherwise is an insult to all people of faith, whether Catholic, evangelical, Jewish, or Muslim.

And remember, Harris and Hirono aren’t the only senators making these suggestions. In 2017, Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein suggested that judicial nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s religious belief rendered her unfit for the bench. A few months before that, the supposedly progressive Bernie Sanders suggested that Russell Vought, an evangelical nominee for a position in the Office of Management and Budget, was unfit for public service because of his belief in the Gospel.

Sanders’ treatment of Vought makes clear that it’s not only Catholics who should be alarmed by this trend among Democrats and progressives. The Left seeks to stifle any public expression of religious belief, whether it’s relevant to one’s job or not, and block from government anyone whose religious beliefs run counter to the ideology of the Left.

For Hirono and Harris, the target was a Catholic who disagreed with them about abortion. For Sanders, it was an evangelical who disagreed with him about salvation through Christ. Other senators will find other reasons to oppose nominees of other religions. Their goal is simple: to drive religion out of the public square, even if that means suggesting that a nominee is an extremist for belonging to a two-million-member organization that raises money for the intellectually impaired, feeds the hungry, and clothes the poor.

People of all faiths and members of both parties must rise up and speak out against this rank bigotry. If you think it will stop with Catholics, you’re already wrong. And if it’s allowed to continue, the Senate will succeed in instituting an unconstitutional religious test.

 


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.

How to Protect International Religious Freedom from the Politicization of Human Rights

By | National Sovereignty, Religious Issues, Religious Liberty | No Comments

Join CWA for a panel event co-sponsored by The Heritage Foundation on “How to Protect International Religious freedom from the Politicization of Human Rights”. This event is a side event for Secretary of State Pompeo’s Ministerial for Advancing Religious Freedom held at the U.S. Department of State July 24-26th 2018.

Panelists will discuss how our “natural” or fundamental human rights, such as religious freedom, protect the fairness of the political process by ensuring that individuals are free to think, speak, and act according to their convictions. Increasingly the human rights of individuals are being conflated with the social and economic policy priorities of particular groups and governments.  This undercuts the moral legitimacy and persuasive power of our natural rights, including our freedom to live according to our religious convictions.

A Statement on Immigration by Penny Nance

By | Blog, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Press Releases | No Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The issue of Immigration is very complicated and fraught with emotional and political landmines.  The truth is that both Democrats and Republicans have used the issue to rev up their bases and score points against each other, ignoring the human cost.

Americans are aghast at the idea of separating legitimate parents from children.  However, the answer can’t be to not enforce the law.

It’s time for Democrats and Republicans to put aside petty politics and get to work on a solution that both protects children and respects the rule of law.

It’s a false choice to suggest that we cannot keep mothers and children together.  However, it is true that there must be a statutory fix to this heartbreaking problem.

I call on Congress to stop with the finger pointing and to pass legislation immediately.

 

Trump is a Born Dealmaker — Let Him Do His Thing

By | Blog, National Sovereignty, News and Events | No Comments

President Trump is a businessman and a deal-maker — we knew that when we elected him. His administration operates differently from any other previous presidential administration, including in diplomacy, where deals are truly an “art form.” So, it is not surprising President Trump threw protocol out the window when he met last week with Chairman Kim Jon Un, the first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and North Korean leader.

Those disappointed with the outcomes of the summit posit that Kim, not Trump, benefited most, suggesting the U.S. gave up more than it got, following in the footsteps of previous U.S. administrations. For example, through threatening the U.S. with armed ballistic missiles, Kim “won” a private meeting with an American president, a longtime strategic goal of his family’s regime. Further criticism says the meeting itself gave legitimacy to the dictatorship of a gross violator of human rights, and that the result of the meeting — the U.S./DRPK joint statement — is only a one-page, “unsubstantial” document which does not outline specifics of denuclearization, nor give a timeline for doing so

Valid points, but in light of previous U.S. administrations’ “flimsy” agreements and failed diplomacy with North Korea, it is important to withhold judgement and give Trump’s new approach to foreign policy a chance. In previous administrations, the U.S. has seen a bottom-up approach to diplomacy, using lower-level officials to outline a deal, only bringing the president in at the end of negotiations to sign, seal, and deliver

Instead, Trump strategically brought the prestige of the U.S. presidency to North Korea, playing to the ego of an arrogant egomaniacal president and building trust, which in turn possibly opened the door to more substantive diplomatic discussion and relationship. He even gave a brief private meeting to Kim, which Trump called “a critical gauge of whether a deal is likely.”  As Trump remarked when asked about the minimum outcome he expected from the summit: “The minimum would be a relationship — you’d start at a dialogue … as a deal person, that is important.”

In addition, he used purposeful rhetoric to lay groundwork for the meeting, sometimes smoothing Kim’s feathers, and sometimes being tough, critical, and dismissive — balancing his response in accordance with the need, but always with the ultimate objective of controlling the outcomes.

One example is when, in mid-May, Kim threatened to cancel the summit. Trump abruptly and publicly cancelled the meeting with a letter citing Kim’s “tremendous anger and open hostility” in statements regarding the U.S.  In immediate response, Kim back-pedaled and offered the U.S. the “time and opportunities” to reconsider the meeting “at any time, at any format,” which Trump graciously accepted. However, he later warned Kim, “It’s a one-time shot” for negotiations, telling the world, “I think it’s going to work out very well” but that at the same time Kim “won’t have that opportunity again.”

“Trump the Negotiator,” for whom deals are an “art form,” is most likely in play here — the billion-dollar businessman who knows how to build lasting coalitions for maximum productivity and profit. Over the past eighteen months, his unorthodox methods have often brought concrete and prosperous results — such as record lows for unemployment, near destruction of ISIS, reduction in illegal immigration, and securing the release of three hostages from North Korea, just to name a few.

Certainly, more details and specifics to the agreement must be outlined, definitions of what constitutes denuclearization must be clarified, and mechanisms to verifiability firmly laid out. As Mike Pompeo pointed out, the summit only opens discussion and sets conditions for future productive talks.

But Trump knows negotiation and how to get results, and is possibly laying the foundation for an agreement, not just for agreement’s sake or for the illusion of progress, but for a process that will actually have the power to accomplish full U.S. objectives. That will not happen overnight or in just one meeting. As the president himself has said: “There’s a good chance it won’t work out,” but “there’s probably an even better chance it will take a period of time.”

Let’s give President Trump a chance to do what we elected him to do—make a deal, in his own way.

Dr. Shea Garrison is Senior Advisor for Foreign Affairs at Concerned Women for America.

 


Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published at Townhall.com. Click here to read it.

Gina Haspel Begins Confirmation Hearings for CIA Director

By | Blog, National Sovereignty, News and Events, Press Releases | No Comments

Washington, D.C. — This morning, President Trump’s nominee for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, Gina Haspel, began her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, issued the following statement in support of Haspel:

“Gina Haspel is a strong, intelligent woman of integrity who has unquestionable qualifications to serve as our nation’s next CIA director. She worked her way to the top in a male-dominated field, but she has risen based on her earned credentials and hard work. If confirmed, she would be the first woman to serve as CIA Director.

“Haspel is undeniably well-qualified for this crucial position. She has served in the CIA for over three decades and has shown a commitment to the rule of law and to the mission of the CIA. She previously served as Deputy Director under then-Director Pompeo and now serves as Acting Director. She has served in numerous senior-level positions, rising through the ranks of the CIA, proving her worth with each earned promotion and numerous awards and recognitions.

“Haspel requested a transfer to the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center to join the fight against al Qaeda. Her first day was a day our nation must never forget, September 11, 2001, the day we were attacked on American soil and almost 3,000 lives were lost. All of our lives forever changed.

“Perhaps most tellingly, Haspel is widely supported by her peers in the intelligence community and from national security officials. For example, Leon Panetta, former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense during the Obama Administration, said ‘I’m glad it’s Gina because, frankly, she is someone who really knows the CIA inside out.’ It’s one thing to win awards; it is another thing entirely to earn the respect of your colleagues and superiors.

“As our nation faces numerous threats from abroad, the CIA remains a crucial element of our national security. Haspel’s career at the CIA has no doubt prepared her, but her own hard work, integrity, and expertise in the field of intelligence is what makes her the best candidate for this job.

“I urge all senators to put partisan bickering and theatrics aside, focus on what is best for our national security, and swiftly confirm Haspel to be our next CIA Director.”

 


For an interview with Penny Nance, contact Annabelle Rutledge at [email protected] or 916-792-3973.