Tag

liberty Archives – Concerned Women for America

Fighting the Government-Big Tech Manipulation

By | Big Tech, Briefs, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

One of the most concerning aspects of President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice’s malicious targeting of parents and others that merely disagree with the government-approved narrative as “domestic terrorists” is that it undermines the actual war against terrorism. The fact is that terrorist organizations like ISIS have pledged harm to our country, and our government has a duty to remain diligent in protecting our citizens from that clear and present danger.

 

Instead of wasting resources in going after political opponents, we must continue to unite against those who hate our American values. Yet, as the Twitter files have exposed, the U.S. Government’s intelligence apparatus has colluded with Big Tech, not to fight terrorism and protect U.S. citizens but to suppress free speech. This is wrong. We must be able to fight for our constitutional rights without losing our ability to focus and distinguish between these and genuine national security threats.

 

In a brief before the United States Supreme Court, Concerned Women for America (CWA) argues for such a distinction, and we seek to hold Big Tech accountable for turning a blind eye to real terrorist threats facing the nation, claiming technical inability and lack of resources, while displaying great power against our own citizens. In it, we say:

 

Because conservative organizations and other individuals and institutions that do not conform to conventional wisdom are increasingly likely to be silenced for expressing what government agencies and Defendants regard as “extreme and polarizing content,” CWA has a strong interest in protecting free speech, including on Defendants’ near monopolistic platforms. Simultaneously, however, CWA believes that foreign terrorist organizations (“FTOs”) like ISIS, and state sponsors of terrorism like Iran – rather than American citizens who disagree with COVID-related school closures or with policies allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports – pose an actual threat to our national security.

 

One must admit we have a problem when a social media company like Twitter, virtually controlling the modern public square, dares to remove a sitting President of the United States, preventing him from speaking freely to its citizens, while giving full access to the Taliban and several of its most prominent spokespeople even as they simultaneously conduct violent attacks against our country. Given that clear choice they have made, affirmatively taking steps to discredit one voice and give legitimacy to another, the company should not be free to wash its hands for the foreseeable consequences of its actions.

 

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, the U.S. Supreme Court will wrestle with the fact that though we now know that Big Tech is fully capable of removing content when they want to, it has chosen not to act in the case of straightforward illegal content choosing instead to focus its vast resources on the protected speech of its political opponents, hiding all the while under the alleged special liability protection the federal government has promised them under some laws, like the infamous Section 230.

 

One example has been especially evident since the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk. In just a few months, Musk cleaned up Twitter of its child pornography problem simply by making it a top priority. The previous owner claimed this was impossible to do, despite their concerted, decades-long efforts to “do everything possible.”

 

Big Tech companies like Google and Meta (formerly Facebook) have become too powerful on the backs of the American people while avoiding the responsibilities that are required of U.S. companies in every other context. Mark Zuckerberg’s nearly half-a-billion dollars investment in the 2020 election, while controlling and manipulating political speech through its platform, is another timely and concerning example.

 

It is a complex problem that will undoubtedly need Congressional action too, but let us hope the U.S. Supreme Court can take steps to start curtailing its growing dangerous power.

 

Who Will be Held Accountable for the Government’s Collusion with Big Tech to Violate Constitutional Rights?

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

The days of speculating about the decision-making process of social media giants like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are over. Although many conservatives could smell the garbage a mile away, given that the censorship was overwhelmingly against conservatives and to help liberals, the release of the now-infamous Twitter Files, reveals deep coordination between the government and the giant tech company to suppress speech the government considered detrimental to its preferred causes.

 

 

Far from what the left has been saying for years, “This is a private company, so it can do whatever it wants,” the fact is that Twitter was not acting of its own accord in many instances but at the behest of the federal government.

 

 

In other words, the government was seeking to suppress speech by proxy. Knowing its actions would be met with First Amendment restrictions if done directly, it pressured social media companies (all of them, not only Twitter) to perform the unconstitutional actions at their behest.

 

 

Journalist Matt Taibbi who has led the coverage of the Twitter Files, concluded, “The files show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government – from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.” The liberal media will certainly try to downplay these findings, but this is explosive, uncontroverted evidence of unconstitutional actions at the highest level of government.

 

 

The problem gets even more nefarious when one considers that the reason liberal Twitter executives played along, despite clear reservations that they were acting improperly, was that the FBI was working to help the political party both entities favored, the Democrats. 

 

 

The Hunter Biden-“Russia misinformation” fiasco is the most clear-cut case of how they sought to affect the elections to favor one party by spreading lies and suppressing legitimate speech on social media. Recall Twitter went so far as to censor the oldest continually published daily newspaper in America, The New York Post, because of its coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop. Twitter banned the distribution of a legitimate news story linking then-presidential candidate Joe Biden to his son’s dubious business relationships abroad.

 

 

It’s been reported that the FBI actually paid Twitter almost $4 million to ban accounts and suppress speech that primarily targeted conservative voices. They even established an exclusive, private channel of communication that gave them direct access to where they would be in communications daily.

 

 

This is why it is such good news that the new House Republican Majority voted this week to establish a “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” modeled after the 1970’s “Church Committee” led by Democrat Sen. Frank Church which investigated intelligence abuses by the executive branch. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is expected to chair the new committee looking into today’s abuses.

 

 

I write to inform you of these developments and ask that you pray for Rep. Jordan and the new committee. They face a monumental task that will require the sort of assistance that is beyond all human control. Let us earnestly seek the intervention of the same hand of Providence that has guided our nation throughout our history.

 

 

We stand at a crucial moment in our history. Trust in our government and all our institutions is quickly disappearing. But this good-faith trust is essential to the survival of our Republic. 

 

 

Therefore, we must demand accountability as the number one priority for this new Congress. Unfortunately, these inquiries have too often led to minimal action when it is all said and done. That cannot happen in this case— for the good of the nation.

Loudoun County Hellscape Part I: Victims Be Damned

By | Defense of Family, Education, LBB, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation | No Comments

The weight of writing about this story has been almost unbearable. Every keystroke requires an unusual sort of effort accompanied by a prayer that God may grant the grace of a positive impact. “Positive” is not a word you would associate with the events of the past few years at Loudoun County Public Schools. And although we should be incredibly grateful to Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares for appointing a grand jury to investigate these events and to the citizens who served on the grand jury, reading the report is painstakingly frustrating.

 

The report finds leadership failures at the highest levels of school administrations that are appalling, immoral, and should be criminal. Yet, no indictments have been issued. We will, therefore, examine these failures in a series of posts meant to stress the gravity of these events and amplify the victim’s continued cry for justice. Part I: Victims Be Damned.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the grand jury report is its lack of focus on the victims. But before I get into that, a quick summary of the events is in order…

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Who Cares About Marriage?

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

When I wrote to you On the Splendor of Marriage, I mentioned the United States Senate’s consideration of a bill meant to paint a target on anyone holding a true definition of marriage as created by God. The bill passed this week with bipartisan support by a vote of 61-36, with three senators not voting.

 

All Democrats present voted for the bill. The Republicans who voted for it were Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, and Todd Young of Indiana.

 

Of course, none of these senators would describe the bill as targeting people of faith; they would say they just want to “respect all people.” But consider that Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed and got a vote on an amendment making it clear that government would not retaliate against people of faith and religious institutions for their sincerely held religious convictions about marriage under this bill, and the vote actually failed. All the Republicans who voted to pass the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act (except Collins) voted for the amendment. Those who voted for the Lee Amendment protecting religious freedom even included Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. But the Lee Amendment failed…

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Stand on Principle and Win

By | LBB, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

To achieve political victory by deceiving the public about who you are and what you will do once in office is no victory at all. It will not be a win for the candidate who will be eventually exposed as a fraud once elected, and in such a case, it is no win for the people who will be left suffering the consequences of policies they did not really want.

 

And the truth is that, usually, people can detect and will be attracted to authenticity. But, more important yet, a battle-tested leader who stands by his convictions in support of American families is nearly impossible to beat.

 

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ overwhelming victory in Florida is an excellent example of this longstanding principle…

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Vote for Your Kids

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Substack, Virginia | No Comments

Democrat Virginia Delegate Elizabeth Guzmán is introducing a bill that would allow the government to charge parents with a felony if they do not affirm their child’s gender confusion in any way that the child wants. The bill would expand the state’s definition of “Abused or neglected child” to include a child whose parent even threatens to inflict a “mental injury on the basis of the child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

 

This is, of course, yet another thing that “would never happen.” I recently came across a post from just a year ago where noted Christian leaders mocked the concerns of conservative Christians raising precisely this possibility. I would bet even today, as many read this, some will be inclined to think, “No, something will happen to stop this, and it will never be.”

 

To complicate matters, the fact is that what usually happens is that the first part of that sentiment may be valid for a little while. In other words, even though you are reading about Guzmán’s bill now, it is not new. She’s presented it before. Every time she presents it, it is closer to being passed. Guzmán would have been ostracized within her own party a few years ago. Today, she has their full support, and anyone opposing her stands on the fringes.

 

Why? Because most people thought “It would never happen.” Then, as I hope you realize, it will inevitably pass, as the people who thought “It would never happen” wonder, “How did we get here?” Well, our silence allowed it. Our busy lives. Our apathy….

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

DOJ Politicization Adding to the Obliteration of Public Confidence in the Rule of Law

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

“Eleven Charged With FACE Act Violations Stemming From 2021 Blockade of Mount Juliet Reproductive Health Clinic,” read the Department of Justice U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee press release. Translation: The U.S. Department of Justice uses law enforcement to harass the Biden Administration’s political adversaries. They see it all as part of their vengeful crusade to protect “reproductive rights” after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

 

The announcement was made by U.S. Attorney Mark H. Wildasin from the Middle District of Tennessee and Kristen M. Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. Clarke is a pro-abortion radical who testified in Congress in 2020 for the codification of a “Constitutional right to abortion.” She believes, “The right to reproductive care, including abortion care, is inextricably intertwined with the ability of women to attain upward mobility …” and that “limits on access to abortion are not just a reproductive rights issue, but a matter that squarely threatens to undermine racial justice, and that necessitates federal legislation.”

 

Naturally, President Joe Biden selected Clarke in 2021 to head the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, ensuring this sort of unjust, politically motivated actions against the Administration’s political opponents would materialize.

 

Meanwhile, DOJ continues to ignore the numerous attacks on pro-life clinics and churches since the Dobbs decision. You might recall CWA was itself vandalized.

 

The pro-life activists were charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act under an indictment that “alleges that, beginning in February 2021, Chester Gallagher utilized social media to promote a series of anti-abortion events scheduled for March 4-7, 2021, in the Nashville area.” DOJ announced, “If convicted, those charged with conspiracy face up to 11 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000.”

 

As if that were not shameful enough, the politicized department proudly announced that “This case was investigated by the FBI,” which has come under unprecedented disrepute following its disgraceful mishandling of numerous cases. From the Larry Nassar case, where the victim’s families are seeking $130 million for their reckless and cruel mishandling of that case, to the Epstein fiasco, where Ghislaine Maxwell received 20 years in prison for trafficking underage girls to apparently no one because they continue to protect and ignore the “clients” of the dastardly affair to the unprecedented and utterly political search of former President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, the FBI has unfortunately lost all credibility.

 

And DOJ has been working similarly alongside them. The adverse consequences of these developments cannot be overstated. Thanks to these blatant abuses, millions of Americans feel there are two systems of justice, one for friends of those in power and one for the rest of the country. They are destroying one of the principles that is foundational to our freedoms. John Adams said it best when he described our republic as “a government of laws, not of men.” This is foundational to justice.

 

The DOJ and FBI’s current despicable behavior reinforces a belief that what matters is not the law but the personnel enforcing it, that the law will be twisted to fit the outcomes they want.

 

The charges against these pro-life advocates are ridiculous. At a time when we face so many challenges in law enforcement, why would they spend the resources on this type of action? Well, it is evident that it is meant to deter pro-life advocacy going forward. Pro-life, pro-family, freedom-loving Americans are being painted as a threat.

 

It is worth noting that these actions are not taken in a vacuum. Remember President Biden’s red-flaming speech flanked by two military members where he screamed about “MAGA Republicans”? Perhaps you recall the DOJ’s outrageous labeling of parents as “domestic terrorists.”

 

This mismanagement and abuse have been catastrophic. We must put an end to it now for the good of our country. Congress must engage even more forcefully. The damage being done will take decades to undo.

New “For Life” Bible Study

By | LBB, Publications, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

No one enjoys being told they are wrong. But this is precisely what we most need when we are blind to the fact that we are indeed wrong about something. The first step to walking away from error is to recognize we stand in one.

 

This is precisely where many in our society find themselves on the issue of life. And as famous pastor, theologian, and mentor of the great Martyn Lloyd-Jones, G. Campbell Morgan eloquently said, “There is one sure and infallible guide to truth, and therefore one, and only one, corrective for error, and that is the Word of God.”

 

That is why I am excited to bring you our “For Life” Bible study. Please stay tuned to ConcernedWomen.org for ordering details.

 

This powerful, error-exposing resource will transform the lives of its student. How can it not? It exposes those who dare wrinkle its pages to the pure, unfiltered, heart-penetrating, two-edged sword of the Scriptures, only asking questions to help the reader reflect on the truths explored. I implore you to engage with it yourself, become familiar with it, and then take the time to disciple others with it.

 

As with any other two-edged sword worthy of that warning, “handle with care,” it is best if someone unfamiliar with such a powerful weapon is helped along by someone with some mastery of the material. I am praying God will move you to become such a helper.

 

Remember Philip’s encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8? The eunuch was reading a passage from Isaiah by himself when Philip approached him and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading” (v.30)? To which he replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me” (v.31)? This study is undoubtedly powerful by itself. But when you teach it to someone else, a true miracle can happen. I pray that many of you will feel called by God to aid in this miraculous work. Would you help me pray for that?

 

I leave you with a short excerpt from Chapter 3, “In the Womb.”

 

Samson’s mother was also “childless, unable to give birth,” until an “angel of the Lord appeared to her and said, ’You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son.’” Judges 13:2-3. Scripture also tells us he was “dedicated to God from the womb.” Judges 13:5.

 

What does Samson being dedicated to God “from the womb” imply?

 

______________________________________________________

 

He was separated from the womb for a specific task. The angel said, “He will take the lead in delivering Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” Judges 13:5. What does that tell us?

 

______________________________________________________

That’s Not What the Court Said

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Religious Issues, Religious Liberty, SCOTUS, Substack | No Comments

The legacy media lies. I hope you know that. They distort the truth and paint everything in the light most favorable to their preferred political desires. In other words, they tell news stories in ways that can help the radical left and the Democratic Party while hurting conservatives and the Republican Party. Do not let yourself be manipulated.

 

This week the Supreme Court released an order in a case called Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance. The headlines as the U.S. Supreme Court took procedural action on the case are all sounding the familiar pro-LGBTQ+ tune synonymous with the leftist legacy media. “Supreme Court Says Yeshiva University Must Allow L.G.B.T. Group as Case Proceeds,” wrote The New York Times. Similar slants were all over the usual leftist newspapers, and commentators on social media took the bait.

 

Only one problem. The Supreme Court has not made any decision on the merits of the case. As I mentioned, they took procedural action. The school has not exhausted all state remedies before asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. There is nothing uncommon about this, and in fact, the Court must be able to manage the enormous number of cases that it is asked to hear. They want lower courts to do the right thing and dispense of cases correctly below. They are hoping the same is done in this case….

 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Sen. Graham’s Pro-Life Bill Will Save Lives, Align Federal Law with American Values

By | News and Events, Sanctity of Life, South Carolina | No Comments

For Immediate Release:                                                        Contact:  [email protected]

September 14, 2022                                                                (703)282-7320

 

Washington, D.C.  –  Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), the largest public policy women’s organization in the country, today announced its support of Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-South Carolina) Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act. This bill will protect the unborn from abortion after fifteen weeks gestation.

 

“Life is a winning issue,” said CWALAC CEO and President, Penny Nance in a press conference with Senator Graham and other policy leaders.  “In today’s post-Roe America, we are finally allowed to have the conversation about what we as a society now know—by following the science—about fetal development. We can finally put into place stronger protections to stop destroying human life.”

 

“We saw abortion extremists show their true colors with so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, better named the Abortion-on-Demand Act. They pushed for taxpayer funded abortion up until the point of birth. This position is out of step with the American people. Unsurprisingly, that bill failed twice on the Senate floor. In a post-Roe poll in June, nearly three-fourths of respondents support a protection for the unborn at 15 weeks.

 

“Consistently, since 1973, around 70% of the American people have supported restrictions on abortion. Through advances in science, families and medical professionals are now able to understand that at fifteen weeks:

 

    • the baby can feel pain,
    • the baby can move her fully formed fingers and toes
    • the baby can suck her thumb
    • the baby has a fully developed heart pumping 26 quarts of blood per day.

 

“So, let’s make it clear to the Republican consultants and pollsters—the country knows what happens inside the womb. They know that life is precious.”

 

CWALAC encouraged other members of the United States Senate to lead with a winning issue for the American people.

 

To schedule an interview with Penny Nance, please contact [email protected].

 

##

 

Concerned Women for America is the Nation’s largest public policy organization for women; we are dedicated to promoting Biblical values and Constitutional principles. More information is available at concernedwomen.org

Who Will Stand for American Families?

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

Weak leadership in Washington is unnecessarily wreaking havoc on American families. At the same time President Joe Biden held a tone-deaf, high-class celebration of the passage of the crookedly titled “Inflation Reduction Act,” a dismal inflation report came out saying the consumer price index, a measurement of the price of everyday items such as groceries, rent and gasoline, rose more than expected, once again, to 8.3%. According to a recent analysis, Americans have to pay an extra $717 monthly due to “Bideinflation.”

 

And it is not just our pocketbooks that are hurting. The stress on parents and the entire household unit is almost unbearable. Our current situation is taking a toll on Americans’ mental health, especially for minorities. A recent LifeWorks Mental Health Index report revealed that “20 percent of Americans are unable to meet basic needs due to inflation.” It also found that those under such pressure “have a mental health score more than 16 points below the national average.”

 

But Washington is not focused on that; instead, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act will only further aggravate inflation by doling out billions for “green energy” special interest groups. Again, helping families is not the priority.

 

In the middle of all this, Senate Democrats took time to try to pass radical pro-abortion legislation to force the gruesome procedure on the nation up to the point of birth — something most Americans oppose. The latest Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll tracking the issue shows 71% of Americans support legal limits on abortion, with a whopping 81% believing laws can protect both the mother and her unborn child.

 

Americans want laws that support hard-working families—fathers, mothers, and children. Many in Washington seem insistent on destroying the American household.

 

It is not just Democrats going along with this cruel, unfocused legislative agenda. Some House Republicans let themselves be used recently to pass what should be called the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) on a 267-157 vote. This anti-family legislation has become a top priority for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), even though it is entirely unnecessary. The pernicious act seeks to further erode the American family unit by destroying its very definition.  This radical law would force the acceptance of any definition of “marriage” sought by any state. Plural marriages, open marriages, marriages involving minors or relatives, literally any definition adopted anywhere in one state. Considering the extent of the radical gender ideology permeating our culture today, there is no limiting principle here.

 

The impact on federal and state law would be seismic. All laws relating to husbands and wives, children and parents would suddenly be up for reinterpretation. The law will open the door for radical activist groups to sue religious individuals, organizations and businesses that the Left knows will seek to abide by the original meaning of marriage as established by God. Religious families and organizations, which are such a stabilizing force in our nation, and desperately needed in such times as these, are continually being held out for special contempt and primed for special interest attacks under legislation such as this one. Who will stand up for these families?

 

Sen. Schumer says he will force a vote “in coming weeks.” Word on Capitol Hill is that he may try to move on it as early as next week. All senators should stand against it and instead demand the sort of family-supporting legislation that can alleviate the current burdens on American families.

 

Of course, the upcoming election is the backdrop to all this shameful political gamesmanship. The goal is to manipulate the American people into voting against their own interests by scaring them with lies about Christian, conservative principles. I remember this summer standing outside the Supreme Court in defense of the Texas heartbeat law and fielding the arguments that “Women will die” if the law goes into effect. All lies meant to manipulate the unsuspecting public. Yet, a year later, estimates are that more than fifty thousand babies have been saved from abortion, and no woman has died as a result.

 

Expect the same political manipulations related to the “Respect for Marriage Act” in the coming weeks. And demand that your senator vote not by the lies and intimidations of the Left but in support of the American families that desperately need it.

Payback: Abortion Radicals to the Court

By | LBB, News and Events | No Comments

President Joe Biden is doing everything in his power to pay back his pro-abortion supporters who are enraged following the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, which finally overturned Roe v. Wade, sending the issue back to the states.

 

He recently signed an executive order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to facilitate travel for women who want to have an abortion, in clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter of federal law, as expressed through the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal money being used to cover the cost of abortions.

 

But the Left long ago figured out that taking such illegal actions requires judges willing to manipulate the law to make sure the policy choices they cannot get through the legislative process are imposed by judicial fiat, exactly what they did through Roe for so many years.

 

Enter Julie Rikelman, President Biden’s nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in Massachusetts. Rikelman is none other than the abortion rights activist who represented the abortion clinic in Dobbs. It doesn’t get more brazen than that.

 

Rikelman has dedicated her life to promoting abortion. She is the senior director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the nation’s most active pro-abortion organization challenging pro-life laws in the states. She was appointed to that position after returning to the organization where she first served as a “Blackmun Fellow.” Justice Blackmun was the author of the Roe v. Wade decision.

 

Needless to say, Rikelman is not an impartial jurist. She is an abortion activist and has been tapped for this position for that very reason. This White House has shown complete contempt for law and justice and the proper role of a judge.

 

President Biden nominated Rikelman after word got out that he might have a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) that would have allowed, Chad Meredith, a nominee some considered conservative to be nominated. Radical groups immediately jumped on the White House to get in line. And so they did, nominating Rikelman to appease the mob and showing little regard for the proper role of a judge.

 

This fits with the increasing abortion radicalism of this White House. Recently, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the Justices took “an unconstitutional action” in Dobbs. That was right on the heels of calling Justice Clarence Thomas “Justice Thompson,” showing complete disdain for Justice Thomas simply because of his judicial philosophy.

 

Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee must stand against the Rikelman nomination while raising awareness of the dangers of the continued political weaponization of the processes of justice.

 

We have seen it, not only in the nominations process, but in the Department of Justices’ targeting of parents, in the FBI’s mishandling of critical information about those they favor politically, and more.

 

Senators should use every tool at their disposal to protect the ideas that guard our liberties. The corruption and politicization of justice should be right at the top that list.

The Myth of the Neutral State in Matters of Religion

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

Now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissenting opinions in Carson v. Makin, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest cases clarifying America’s robust religious liberty protections, reveals one of the fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment which impairs many people’s judgment in such cases. It is the myth of the neutral state.

 

In comparing religiously affiliated private schools to public schools, Justice Breyer writes that “public schools are religiously neutral.” I was glad I was not taking a sip of my coffee at that moment, or it would have been all over my desk. Can anyone who is aware of what is being taught in our schools seriously argue that schools are “neutral” regarding religious matters?

 

The radical left’s dogma is being imposed much more forcefully than any other religious tenet taught in most American religious institutions. And it’s not even close.

 

In Carson, the state of Maine had enacted a tuition assistance program for children in school districts that do not have a state secondary school. The program allows parents to choose the public or private school their children will attend, and the government would pay the school to help defray the cost. Before 1981, parents could choose any school if they met some basic requirements. But in 1980, the state excluded religious schools with a condition that the schools be “nonsectarian.”

 

The state “considers a sectarian school to be one that is associated with a particular faith or belief system and which, in addition to teaching academic subjects, promotes the faith or belief system with which it is associated and/or presents the material taught through the lens of this faith.”

 

Are not our public schools overwhelmingly associated with a particular “belief system”? In addition to teaching academic subjects, don’t they promote that belief system in any way they can? Have you seen the modern classroom decor? Have you seen the resources they are spending money to bring into the school… 

Click here to read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

Rebuking Jesus—Liberal Elites Know Best

By | Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life | No Comments

Our sensory-overloaded society has a hard time focusing. We go from scandal to scandal, emergency to emergency, outrage to outrage. There is no time for serious reflection and introspection—no time for mourning and repentance. It is no wonder we have become so easily deceived and manipulated.

 

The swindle of the radical gender ideology is a perfect example. This week, UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Khiara Bridges testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing titled, “A Post-Roe America: The Legal Consequences of the Dobbs Decision.” Of course, everyone expected the radical abortion position that refuses to acknowledge the humanity of babies in the womb at any point. That sort of callous disregard for human life, even after birth, has become a hallmark of the liberal elites that permeate our institutions of higher learning. What is new is this attempt to present a fact-free, fantastical account of reality as an uncontroverted fact that everyone must pretend to accept or else.

 

Thanks for reading Mario’s Musings! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

 

In speaking about the killing of a baby in the womb, Prof. Bridges repeatedly said things like, “I think that the person with the capacity for pregnancy has value, and they should have the ability to control what happens.”

 

To speak of mothers as “the person with the capacity of pregnancy” is deranged. But this is what is being demanded of all of us. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) clashed with the new gender ideology golden statue as he tried to probe Prof. Bridges on the matter.

 

HAWLEY: “You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?”

 

BRIDGES: “Many women, cis women, have the capacity for pregnancy. Many cis women do not have the capacity for pregnancy. There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy.”

 

Click here to watch the clip and read the rest of Mario’s exclusive Substack column. And be sure to subscribe below to never miss one of his posts again!

No Freedom Without Prayer

By | Case Vault, Legal, News and Events, SCOTUS | No Comments

We are a nation born of the radical idea that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” That is why liberty and freedom flourished in our nation against all odds. That fundamental appeal to the authority of our Creator, above and beyond earthly governments, levels the playing field among selfish human interests.

 

It is a plea to a higher authority above raw human power, and it necessarily affirms every person’s intrinsic, equal value. It stands squarely against the inevitable attempts of our broken nature to establish one class of individuals above another. These attempts have existed throughout time. They were undoubtedly palpable at the nation’s founding. We still have them today. And they will continue.

 

Eternal vigilance is a prerequisite for sustained freedom in this world.

 

The recent religious liberty win in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District is an excellent example of the efforts needed to preserve liberty in America in the coming years. Increased hostility toward Christ and His teachings is leading our culture to some bizarre conclusions that will devastate our future if they are allowed to take root.

 

At the same time that our culture insists on promoting the early sexualization of our children in schools, with drag queens promoted as the best role models, here, in this case, a Christian coach had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend his unalienable right to pray silently after school football games. He is apparently not the type of role model our kids need.

 

Drag queens, fantastic role models; humble, praying, Christian coaches, horrible-no-good-intolerable role models, according to today’s woke school officials.

 

Like Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority to uphold Coach Kennedy’s First Amendment rights, pointed out, in the system’s view, “the only acceptable government role models for students are those who eschew any visible religious expression.”

 

Thankfully, the United States Supreme Court has stopped the targeting of our Christian faith for now. However, the attitude that persisted in this injustice for almost seven years against Coach Kennedy still dominates our public educational institutions. And our federal courts, let’s not forget that. The targeting of Coach Kennedy was approved by both the district and the appellate courts.

 

We have so distorted the Constitution throughout the years that public officials actually believed, and again, the lower courts went right along, “not only that it may prohibit teachers from engaging in any demonstrative religious activity, but that it must do so in order to conform to the Constitution.”

 

This is, of course, absurd given our nation’s founding, but anti-Christian forces have used the so-called “separation of church and state” extra-constitutional mantra so often for so long that this misconception of the First Amendment in schools is widespread. Here the Court helps clarify that this misunderstanding of law cannot shield school officials from their intolerant practices. “[T]he only meaningful justification the government offered for its reprisal rested on a mistaken view that it had a duty to ferret out and suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech,” the Court wrote. “The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.”

 

Religious speech is speech. It should be afforded all the constitutional protections traditionally applied to any other speech. Instead, for years, it has been particularly targeted because it is religious. This boggles the mind when one considers that, if anything, religious expressions were singled out in the Constitution as perhaps worthy of heightened protection. As the Court wrote:

 

In the name of protecting religious liberty, the District would have us suppress it. Rather than respect the First Amendment’s double protection for religious expression, it would have us preference secular activity. Not only could schools fire teachers for praying quietly over their lunch, for wearing a yarmulke to school, or for offering a midday prayer during a break before practice. Under the District’s rule, a school would be required to do so.

 

That double protection the Court references was also a crucial part of the opinion because, for years, some have tried to pit the free exercise and the establishment clause against each other, but instead, “the Clauses have ‘complimentary’ purposes, not warring ones where one Clause is always sure to prevail over the others.”

 

The school district here thought it needed to choose between the two. The Court explained: “[T]the District effectively created its own ‘vise between the Establishment Clause on one side and the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses on the other,’ placed itself in the middle, and then chose its preferred way out of its self-imposed trap.”

 

The school officials were simply mistaken, as they are so often. “And in no world may a government entity’s concerns about phantom constitutional violations justify actual violations of an individual’s First Amendment rights.” This should have been apparent, especially for the judges reviewing the cases. “We are aware of no historically sound understanding of the Establishment Clause that begins to ‘mak[e] it necessary for government to be hostile to religion’ in this way,” the Court wrote. There is none. The courts below did not cite one either.

 

Instead, they relied on the infamous Lemon test, which “called for an examination of a law’s purposes, effects, and potential for entanglement with religion.” The test has long been criticized for fundamentally distorting the original meaning of the First Amendment.

 

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has long joined that chorus of criticism, asking the Court to abandon it. As the Court held, “the ‘shortcomings’ associated with this ‘ambitiou[s],’ abstract, and ahistorical approach to the Establishment Clause became so ‘apparent’ that this Court long ago abandoned Lemon and its endorsement test offshoot.”

 

Lemon is dead. Justice Gorsuch’s straightforward treatment leaves no doubt for lower courts. “In place of Lemon and the endorsement test, this Court has instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.'”

 

Under that standard, it is clear that “in this case Mr. Kennedy’s private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from impermissible government coercion.”

 

Of course, some will still find offense at any public expression of faith—especially the Christian faith. But “[o]ffense. . . does not equate to coercion,” and the Court puts that “hecklers veto” to rest masterfully.

 

Naturally, Mr. Kennedy’s proposal to pray quietly by himself on the field would have meant some people would have seen his religious exercise. Those close at hand might have heard him too. But learning how to tolerate speech or prayer of all kinds is “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society,” a trait of character essential to “a tolerant citizenry.”

 

Ordinarily, the Court would spend some time describing the different standards of review, but this case was so clear that the Court said, “it does not matter which standard we apply. The District cannot sustain its burden under any of them.”

 

This is a strong opinion that we hope can help lower courts and even school officials better understand the constitutional burdens they bear when dealing with sincere religious exercises going forward. They would be wise to train their instincts towards accommodation.

 

As the Court concluded, “Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head.” Well said.

SCOTUS

Super-Duper Supreme Court Term

By | Case Vault, Legal, SCOTUS | No Comments

Remember when some tried to sell Roe as “super-duper” precedent? Well, it didn’t work. Roe is gone (all praise be to God!), but we have been indeed left with something “super-duper”—this Supreme Court term. It was just superb.

 

It all starts with Dobbs, of course (and that would be more than enough to celebrate), but it went beyond that, and I wanted to take a moment and celebrate with you each victory by presenting to you a short summary of the term’s most amazing top 5 wins!

 

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization— The Court declared unequivocally that the United States Constitution does not and has never conferred a right to abortion. Therefore, the Court spent much time discussing the grave errors in the Roe and Casey framework before formally overruling them and returning the authority to states to be free to protect unborn life in the best way they see fit.

 

  • Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson— Just before the Dobbs case was argued, the Court heard a challenge to the Texas Heartbeat Act. The state law prohibits most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected through an ultrasound, but it has no state law enforcement mechanism, only private enforcement action. The pro-abortion side wanted the Supreme Court to intervene to stop the law, but the Court correctly refused to intervene. The practical result was that almost 8,000 babies were saved in the first three months after the law went into effect.

 

  • Shurtleff v. City of Boston— A unanimous Court here agreed that the First Amendment rights of Harold Shurtleff, the director of Camp Constitution, were violated by the city of Boston when it refused to allow him to fly the Christian flag at a public pole that the city had made available for private groups to fly different kind of flags indiscriminately.

 

  • Carson v. Makin— The Court held Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for generally available tuition assistance payments to parents who lived in a district that did not operate a secondary school of their own violated the parent’s First Amendment free speech rights. Parents are free then to use the money to send their kids to any school they want, treating all schools, secular or religious, equally, instead of targeting religious schools for discrimination.

  • Finally, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District— the Coach Kennedy case, as most of you know it. Coach Kennedy was unjustly fired for silently praying at midfield after football games. The Supreme Court has now made official the fact that he was fired, not only unjustly but unconstitutionally. What a sweet victory for this man and his family, who have fought for almost seven years to protect our religious liberty rights. The Court held that both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual’s right to engage in a personal religious observance. The Court said, “The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”

 

Can we stop and thank God for His goodness, mercy, and grace? All of these are part of just one Supreme Court term. We can expect more! The Constitutional imbalance we have been living (and suffering) under is slowly being straightened back to a more faithful and impartial application of justice. We are sure to reap the blessings of these actions for decades to come.

A Prayer of Thanksgiving that Roe is No More

By | Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

As the deer pants for the water,

So we have longed to see

Your righteousness restored, oh Lord

With the demise of abortion on demand in our land.

 

This was a seemingly impossible task,

The world told us.

“Abortion is our right,”

They screamed, as millions of babies died.

 

For fifty years Roe hung

Like an evil dark cloud of judgment

While many mocked You and Your Word

As approving of such barbarity.

 

But we, the remnant, had faith in You,

In justice and truth.

We drank the tears of repentance for our nation

And prayed diligently, without ceasing.

 

We hoped in God alone,

Therefore, we know our redemption

Was secured. Those who trust in You

Are never disappointed!

 

Thank You, Father!

Thank You, Jesus, the Son!

Thank You Holy Spirit, for guiding us!

All glory to You.

 

As hard as we have worked,

To see this day of joyful deliverance,

We know it was not our efforts,

But the Lord’s grace. Amen!

 

Grace, grace!

God’s grace!

That grace that pardons and cleanses within,

Grace that is greater than all our sins.

 

Even the great sin of abortion

Melts away— as far as the East is from the West

Your grace removes our transgression

And gives us hope for the future.

 

Now, we pray peace in our land, Lord.

Calm the hearts not set on you,

Let not the Enemy use and abuse

Any more women in the cause of death.

 

Help us to care for all mothers

And their children, born and unborn.

Help us to trust and pray, even more,

Until the day of Your return.

 

Amen.

Justice Restored—Roe Overturned

By | Dobbs, Legal, News and Events, Sanctity of Life, SCOTUS | No Comments

“Down goes Roe.” You could almost hear it from inside the U.S. Supreme Court (in that iconic Howard Cosell voice). And just as Cosell said of George Forman, the pro-life movement “is as poised as can be.” Justice demanded an end to Roe. Justice, we got.

 

In a stunning 6-3 masterclass opinion delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring in judgment (but saying he would not go so far as to overturn Roe and Casey), the Court simply holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

 

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

 

“The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion,” the Court wrote. First, the Court acknowledges the obvious, “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion,” and turns at once to the many theories that have been offered throughout the years to manipulate the constitutional text and read a right to abortion into the Constitution. “Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” the Court explains. Casey shifted that and “grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”  Still, others tried the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

It is refreshing to see the Court refuse to play the usual pro-abortion games in law and instead conclude, “regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures.” …

 

Please, click here to read the rest of this column as featured on American Thinker.

Female Athletes Are Being Victimized to Pander to the Personal Fantasies of a Few

By | LBB, Legal, News and Events, Sexual Exploitation, Women's Sports | No Comments

Women athletes are in danger of losing their rights to the desires of men who feel they are women.

 

The anti-science effort to erase the physical differences between men and women is regressive and dangerous. Women are being victimized in the name of an AstroTurf diversity that discriminates against all who do not conform to the personal fantasies of a few.

 

The effort has consequences that go well beyond women’s athletics. In April, a male Rikers inmate claiming to be a woman was sentenced to seven years for raping a female prisoner in the women’s section of the jail. Concerned Women for America, the organization I represent — a Christian, conservative organization — is supporting a lawsuit by the liberal feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front to fight for women’s rights on this front.

 

We are also witnessing the pernicious promotion of transgender ideology in public schools, which ignores the sadpractical reality of the harmful long-term effects of life-altering surgical procedures on all young people, but on young women in particular.

 

But legally speaking, the women’s sports aspect of this battle, which has the backing of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, should be preventing the injustices we are witnessing…

 

Read the rest of this op-ed as featured exclusively on The Western Journal.

Concerned Women to Biden Administration: Stop the Assault on Women’s Rights; Protect Title IX

By | Erasing Women, News and Events, Social / Cultural Issues, Women's Sports | No Comments

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is reviewing the Department of Education’s (ED) plans to unilaterally amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) to follow along with the Biden Administration’s radical push for an elevation of the concerns of men who identify as women, over those of women in all areas of federal law. It will effectively be the destruction of Title IX.

 

President Joe Biden has ignored the concerns of millions of women as he moved swiftly on an Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, and another one on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. Women lose under the proposed extreme implementations of these orders, and that is why Concerned Women for America (CWA) is standing in strong opposition.

 

Recently, CWA’s Doreen Denny, one of the nation’s leading experts on the protection of women’s rights against the gender identity push that seeks to erase women’s unique makeup as women, Annabelle Rutledge, National Director of CWA’s Young Women for America program, and Mario Diaz, CWA’s General Counsel met with high-level officials from OMB and ED to express the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of concerned women members from around the country.

 

Denny’s statement set the tone for CWA’s clear stance for women and scientific truth in policymaking. She said in part:

 

Forcing a new interpretation of sex under Title IX is a direct threat to every woman and girl in America. What this proposed rule does in practice is nothing less than erase our status and protections as females. There is an inherent conflict in these policies already playing out across the country today:  female students are being assaulted in school restrooms; female athletes are losing their rightful opportunities in WOMEN’s sports. Have you quantified those costs?

 

Let’s be clear: “gender identity” does not equal sex. Therefore, it should not be used to undermine Title IX protections for women. “On the basis of sex” as stated in Title IX, should be based solely on the immutable genetic fact of being male or female – not on gender perceptions.

 

A person’s subjective claim to being the opposite sex does not, and will never, make that person the opposite sex. Gender dysphoria is a real condition, and its treatment deserves compassion – but the answer is not to affirm a lie and require everyone else to comply.

 

Biology is not bigotry. As women, we expect that the sex discrimination protections of Title IX passed into law 50 years ago will continue to protect our safety, privacy, and opportunities based on our objective female status – as intended.   Whatever objective you have for “inclusion” must not be accomplished on the backs of women and girls.    

 

Ms. Rutledge followed up with a passionate plea representing the young female athletes who feel entirely ignored and under threat because of these ill-conceived, radical policies. Her statement said in part:

 

Young Women for America is made up of these brave women in high school, college, and young professionals. Each group is directly impacted by a refusal to uphold Title IX.

 

Our Young Women for America leaders have stepped up to the plate to do their part to protect women’s sports and are begging that you respect reality and basic biology by rejecting any proposed rule which would include gender identity. Gender identity is not sex.

 

We are in an unfortunate situation when high school and college-age females are having to uphold reality while government entities seem bent on undermining Title IX at every turn. Our leaders have asked for excused absences, covered their work shifts, and taken tests early so they can show up and fight for their rights by testifying in committee hearings and press conferences. They understand it is not just their rights, but the rights of all women who are coming behind us.

 

You may not be hearing these tragic stories – but sadly I  hear them too often.

 

You can check out some of the testimonies below:

 

 

Finally, CWA’s General Counsel spoke about the illegality of trying to amend the clear text and protections under Title IX’s legal classification of “sex” by unilaterally changing the meaning to include “gender identity.” Diaz cautioned of the unintended consequences for women and of clear Supreme Court precedent that has ruled against such manipulation of federal law through administrative rules and procedures.

 

The Biden Administration officials were respectful and welcoming of CWA’s comments and expertise in this area. We can only pray that they actually take our counsel and slow down the left’s radical push in this area so that they may stop trampling on hard-fought, historical women’s rights victories in pursuit of a counterfeit diversity policy.