The next step in my journey to determining my vote is a discussion of those dreaded social issues; you know, the ones that a group in the Republican Party keep trying to sweep under the rug because they fret about losing moderate voters. Well, if voters are moderate they are most likely going to vote for Democrats anyway because to be moderate is to be unprincipled – and Democrats seem to lack principle except in one instance: acquiring political power at the expense of liberty.
(By the way, if you are joining me here, this is the fourth part of the series. You’d be well-served to work through from the first part. I can wait.)
So here are the parameters I’m looking for, in five or fewer bullet points:
- Abortion should not be the law of the land despite what the Supreme Court says – a proper reading of the Constitution would maintain states retain the right to restrict it as they wish. The next President should work to overturn the incorrectly decided Roe v. Wade decision, which hopefully will be looked at by future generations with the disdain the Dred Scott decision is today. No funding for Planned Parenthood and preservation of the Hyde Amendment. Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for abortions, nor should insurers be compelled to cover them.
- The same goes for so-called same-sex “marriage.” I’m fine with the legality of civil unions, but once again the SCOTUS whiffed on Obergefell. It’s properly a state-level issue, too.
- By the same token, religious conscience should be protected. Just because 2 Timothy 3:12 advises Christians that they will face persecution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a President who fights on our side.
- Guys use the guys room, ladies use the ladies. God gave us a particular set of plumbing and that should be the guide. However, I will say that a truly transgender person really isn’t the problem because they have to use a private stall wherever they go – so no one would ever really know. Maybe “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be the guide for that group.
- I don’t have a problem with a state legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. It’s their right.
This category is worth eight points – not quite to the deal-breaker stage yet, but it may begin to separate the field. And no apologies.
Castle: “Well, I’m a Christian, so I’m opposed to (same-sex ‘marriage.’) I don’t think it exists, because it violates God’s law. But as president, I don’t think it’s any of government’s business. I want to see the government out of the marriage business altogether.”
As for same sex marriage, I have said that I do not believe in it or that it even exists. If I were President and two members of the same sex came to me and said we’re married and here’s a priest, a minister, and a civil magistrate who will attest to that, I would say you are not married because God defines marriage quite clearly in his holy word and you do not meet that definition. However, as President it is irrelevant to me because your relationship is none of my business. It is an abuse of political power to require people to buy a license from the government for permission to engage in whatever relationship they choose. Since there would be no governmental financial advantage to this relationship it is not a governmental concern. (interview with Peter Gemma)
Gender-neutral bathrooms “violate every sense of privacy and decency.”
“Unlike Hillary Clinton who recently said, ‘unborn persons have no constitutional rights’, I know that all ‘persons’ have the right to life and both the 5th and 14th amendments confirm that position. I also know, as does Mrs. Clinton in the deep recesses of her heart, that those waiting in their mother’s womb to be born are in fact persons.
There are many things that a Constitutional President could do about abortion but I will give you a couple.
1. Veto and refuse to spend every penny of funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
2. Recommend to Congress, and work to convince Congress, to take away the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over such matters.”
Would not prosecute mothers who abort child, but would prosecute the abortionists.
Would not tell a baker to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony if their views conflict. (Iron Sharpens Iron radio show)
Hedges: Those who distribute alcohol/drugs should be responsible for effects on those served (dram shop laws). But don’t prosecute individual drug users. Would allow medical marijuana, although many party members would disagree.
A prohibition on gambling, including state lotteries as they are a regressive tax.
Not all religions should be equally prohibited. ACLU is backward: U.S. is nation of all religions, not no religion.
Family is basis for society.
“I believe all lives matter.” Abortions since 1973 are “absolute travesty.” (VP candidate Bill Bayes)
“We deplore the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage as an abomination to God. We call for a constitutional amendment, which shall read as follows: ‘Marriage is, historically, an Institution and Sacrament of the Church. Only the Church shall decide what qualifies as a ‘marriage.’ For the purpose of two individuals who need only legal protection, such as for inheritance and for power of attorney one for the other, the state may license Civil Unions.’” (party platform)
Voluntary prayer and other religious activities shall not be prohibited in schools and public spaces. (party platform)
“We consider abortion to be morally repugnant. We will implement policies to minimize the number of abortions without infringing on the doctor/patient relationship and without thrusting government into family decisions about child rearing. Abortion procedures should not be funded by government.” (party platform)
Hoefling: (T)he God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary. (party platform)
We seek the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and oppose all attempts everywhere to redefine marriage as being anything but what it has always been: the union of one man and one woman. Since the natural family is the basic God-given institution of our civilization, and the nursery of our future, it must be protected from all who would destroy it. (party platform)
Johnson: Protect Religious Freedom. Enforce Common Sense Non-discrimiation Laws.
Gov. Gary Johnson will zealously defend the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments, including religious freedom. The right to practice one’s religion is a fundamental part of being an American and must be preserved. Johnson personally credits his own religious upbringing as a Lutheran in the definition of his own beliefs and character.
Yet there have been times in our history when religion has been invoked to justify serious harm. In years past, opponents of interracial marriage, desegregation and other efforts to protect civil rights have too often cited scripture and religion in making their arguments.
To be blunt, certain politicians have twisted religious liberty and used it as a tool to discriminate. That’s just wrong, and the overwhelming majority of religious leaders agree.
Gary Johnson believes we can, and must, strike a balance between our shared American values of religious liberty and freedom from discrimination. Today, in some states, politically-driven legislation which claims to promote religious liberty but instead rolls back the legal protections held by LGBT Americans is failing that test of balance.
When it comes to civil rights and the rights of the LGBT community, states are best served when they take an inclusive approach of “fairness to all.”
Conversely, divisive and thinly-veiled legislation clearly aimed at LGBT individuals serves no one, and is not the American way.
One state who “got it right” is Utah. In a compromise worked out among religious leaders, lawmakers and members of the LGBT community, Utah enacted a law making clear that discrimination in employment, housing, and government services is illegal. At the same time, the law granted common sense protections to insure that the legitimate First Amendment rights of individuals and religious organizations cannot be put at risk.
In short, Utah found a way to protect religious freedom without creating a “right to discriminate”.
America is big enough to accommodate differences of opinion and practice in religious and social beliefs. As a nation and as a society, we must reject discrimination, forcefully and without asterisks while at the same time we must protect our important religious freedoms. (campaign website)
Appreciate Life. Respect Choice. Stay Out of Personal Decisions.
Gary Johnson has the utmost respect for the deeply-held convictions of those on both sides of the abortion issue. It is an intensely personal question, and one that government is ill-equipped to answer.
On a personal level, Gary Johnson believes in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. As Governor, he supported efforts to ban late-term abortions.
However, Gov. Johnson recognizes that the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land, and has been for several decades. That right must be respected and despite his personal aversion to abortion, he believes that such a very personal and individual decision is best left to women and families, not the government. He feels that each woman must be allowed to make decisions about her own health and well-being and that the government should not be in the business of second guessing these difficult decisions.
Gov. Johnson feels strongly that women seeking to exercise their legal right must not be subjected to prosecution or denied access to health services by politicians in Washington, or anywhere else. (campaign website)
Save money. Change lives. Protect families.
The Federal government should not stand in the way of states that choose to legalize marijuana. Governors Johnson and Weld would remove cannabis from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, which will allow individual states to make their own decisions about both recreational and medical marijuana — just as they have done for decades with alcohol. Eliminating the Federal government as an obstacle to state legalization decisions is not only constitutionally sound, but would allow much-needed testing of marijuana for medical purposes, as well as regulation that reflects individual states’ values and needs.
The health benefits of cannabis in pain treatment has already proven to be safer and less addictive than current pain medications such as opioids. Pharmaceutical companies need to be allowed to conduct medical testing on cannabis. This is better for all Americans. A President that is not afraid to tackle the tough issues would understand that de-scheduling cannabis and allowing medical research is the right thing to do.
The marijuana black market has created a non-stop crime epidemic. Thousands of lives are lost each year in trafficking along the Mexican boarder alone. The War on Drugs has been an expensive failure. We spend money to police it. We spend money to incarcerate nonviolent offenders. And what do we get in return? A society that kicks our troubled mothers, fathers, and young adults while they’re down, instead of giving them the tools to be healthier and more productive members of society. Crime and wasted lives has produced a circle of failure….and it needs to stop.
We can save thousands of lives and billions of dollars by simply changing our approach to drug abuse. That is why Gary Johnson came out as an early proponent on the national stage in 1999 while Governor of New Mexico, and publicly stated his support of marijuana legalization.
Governors Johnson and Weld do not support the legalization of other recreational drugs that are currently illegal. It is, however, their belief that drug rehabilitation and harm-reduction programs result in a more productive society than incarceration and arrests for drug use. (campaign website)
This is why Gary Johnson embraced marriage equality before many current Democratic leaders joined the parade. He was also the highest ranking official to call for an end to the drug war and start treating drug abuse like a disease instead of a crime.
His vice presidential running mate, Governor Bill Weld, was not only an early proponent of civil rights for gays and lesbians, he actually appointed the judge who wrote the opinion that established marriage equality as a matter of constitutional right. He is also an outspoken defender of a woman’s right to choose, rather than allow the government to make such an important and personal decision for them.
Unlike Governors Johnson and Weld, those in power today are steadily eroding the personal freedoms that our government was established to protect.
Gary Johnson believes that people, not politicians, should make choices in their personal lives. Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as they aren’t harming anyone else in doing so. (campaign website)
McMullin: Our respect for life is the most important measure of our humanity. From conception to death – and any time in between – life is precious and we have a responsibility to protect it. A culture that subsidizes abortion on demand runs counter to the fundamental American belief in the potential of every person – it undermines the dignity of mother and child alike. Americans can and should work together to increase support and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and encourage adoption, even if they may have different opinions on abortion rights.
Religious liberty is freedom of conscience, inherently connected to actions and expression; it’s the grace to let others pursue their convictions and the willingness to welcome a marketplace of diverse ideas. This freedom is central to the American experiment, and it should be protected, not disparaged. At a time when global religious persecution is at record highs, America must prioritize the defense of this core human right in our diplomatic efforts. Our moral authority to defend religious freedom abroad relies on the vitality of religious freedom here at home. Our government should not target religious groups for discrimination or marginalization based on the obligations of their faith, but instead recognize that religious diversity and robust pluralism are foundational sources of strength for our nation. (campaign website)
Evan McMullin told Mark Halperin he is personally opposed to redefining marriage but that he would do nothing to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Bloomberg News webcast, “With All Due Respect.”
“As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman, but I respect the decision of the Court, and I think it’s time to move on,” McMullin said, echoing moderate Republican presidential hopefuls.
When pressed, McMullin said he would have “ideally” liked to see the issue decided by the states, “but it’s been handled by the Supreme Court, and that’s where it is.”
McMullin said he bases his definition of marriage on his Mormon faith, but “my faith isn’t everybody else’s faith. I make my decisions for me [based] on those kinds of things.”
When Halperin asked if a President McMullin would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the case nullifying state marriage protection laws nationwide, Obergefell v. Hodges, he replied, “I wouldn’t.” (LifeSite News)
I like Darrell Castle‘s thought process, as he posits an argument that has merit when it comes to marriage as a whole, because it is a legitimate option states could take if they so chose. He’s also very sound on the abortion issue since indeed Congress could remove that area of jurisdiction – in fact, they could very easily rein in the SCOTUS if they had the desire to do so. Overall he does extremely well in this category. 7 points.
Jim Hedges is a little weak on abortion, but on the other hand he gives the other legitimate counter-argument with regard to marriage: since it would take 38 states to ratify a Federal Marriage Amendment, it would occur in a situation where the vast majority of states were already on board. I’m not sure a federal ban on gambling would be enforceable, but I could see this as being a benefit overall since lotteries are indeed regressive taxes. I also agree with him on voluntary prayer. 6 points.
I appreciate Tom Hoefling‘s passion for life. But I’m curious how all that shakes out with the rule of law as it currently exists. Indeed, as an inalienable right life comes before liberty for a reason - for without life there is no liberty. Yet this nation lives under a Constitution that prohibits “notwithstanding any law passed…to the contrary.” It makes me question where he feels the extent of his executive power would lie, and that is troubling too. I don’t want to trade one Trump (or Obama) for another, no matter how well-intentioned. 3 points.
When a woman’s liberty is deemed to trump the unborn’s right to life, that is a non-starter with me. But Gary Johnson goes there. Johnson also cites Utah’s anti-discrimination law as a model to follow, even though the head of Equality Utah noted the law Johnson cites has, “among the broadest religious exemptions in the country, and you would never want to cut and paste (their law.)” He called the bill “a milestone for Utah, but not a model for the country.” So it wasn’t the grand compromise Johnson makes it out to be.
Johnson and Weld seem to turn their back on Judeo-Christian values in the name of liberty – but I contend America needs the guardrails for its system of government is intended “only for a moral and religious people.” Only because they are relatively permissive on marijuana do they score at all here. 1 point.
Evan McMullin may be a decent and pious man, but in his statement he shows that he does not have the gumption to stand up for what is right. Whether it’s in the name of “pragmatic” political expediency or the belief that people need to be left alone and to “move on,” he forgoes the use of his bully pulpit at a time when it’s more necessary than ever. Shameful. No points.
It is on that sour note that I inform you the next part will deal with pocketbook issues, specifically trade and job creation.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, I’m one of those Republicans who occupies the #NeverTrump camp.
Before I go any further, let me explain some basic math to you: 0+0 = 0. My not voting for Trump does not add one to Hillary Clinton’s column because I’m not voting for her, either. By the theory some on the Trump bandwagon are using to criticize #NeverTrump, my not voting for Hillary should add one to his total. But it won’t. I will vote for someone who I feel is the most qualified on the ballot, rather than the lesser of two searing-hot evils.
This election was supposed to be the repudiation of the Obama big-government, strongly executive agenda. Unfortunately, unless the GOP comes to its senses next week, frees the delegates, and comes up with a good conservative candidate, they will sink like the Titanic in November.
But I don’t come by my distaste for Trump lightly. While he has some redeeming qualities that could conceivably come into play on the slim chance he’s elected, there is the sense in my mind that he takes the ideal of limited government and wrests it from the domain of the GOP, leaving both major parties as two sides of the same worthless coin.
It’s likely you recall that I based my original endorsement (of Bobby Jindal, who is backing Trump but has been quiet about it) on the field’s positions on ten items, with a sliding scale of importance assigned to each:
- Second Amendment
- Social Issues
- Trade and job creation
- Foreign Policy
- Role of Government
So I went back and reminded myself. To avoid this being overly long, I’m doing the first five in this part with part 2 hosting the second half.
On education, Trump claims to be for local control and against Common Core, which is an orthodox Republican view. But even though he would “cut it way, way, way down” he doesn’t support the complete elimination of the Department of Education. He does have a good point in reversing the trend toward the government being a student loan lender, pushing it back to the banks and other lending institutions where it traditionally rested.
The problem with his approach is that it doesn’t go far enough. Other candidates vowed to finish the job Ronald Reagan vowed to start by eliminating the Department of Education. To me, the federal government has no place on education – states and localities should set standards and run their school systems as they see fit. But any attempt to wean local school districts off the crack of federal funding will be met with howls of protest and Trump fails to impress me as someone who will follow through with these promises. After all, Trump did say education was one of the top three functions of government. “The government can lead it, but it should be privately done.” I’m confused, too.
Trump seems to be a Second Amendment guy as he did get the NRA endorsement. But the chairman of Gun Owners of America was not as quick to praise The Donald based on his past statements. And again, the idea is not just to enforce the laws on the books but get rid of some of the most egregious, let alone get to ”shall not be infringed.” But wouldn’t someone who is on the no-fly list in error be having their rights infringed? This observer asks the question.
And then we have the subject of energy. Now Trump went to North Dakota – a major oil producing state – and promoted his “America First” energy plan. In it, he promised “Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped.” But when he was in Iowa campaigning a few months earlier he threw his support behind a wasteful ethanol subsidy and carveout. So which is it? And would he allow Sarah Palin to sunset the Department of Energy?
On to social issues: Trump says he is pro-life and would defund Planned Parenthood, but how will he restore a “culture of life”? We don’t have that specific. Nor will be stand against the troubling idea of leaving people free to use the bathroom they feel like using – this despite claiming gay marriage should be left to the states – or is it the “law of the land“? (By that same token, so is abortion as it was based on a SCOTUS decision, too.)
So do you get the idea so far that I trust him about as far as I can throw him based on mixed messages and inconsistent policies? Once again, the idea here in the upcoming term was to reverse the tide of bigger, more intrusive government – but I don’t detect the same sort of impetus from Trump that I received from the candidates I favored. And to me, what would make America great again is for us to return to being good – at least in terms of re-adopting the Judeo-Christian values we’ve gotten away from after ousting God from the public square. I don’t see “Two Corinthians” but three marriages Trump as being a spiritual leader in the manner of a Reagan or George W. Bush, even insofar as being decent human beings.
And lastly for this evening, I’d like to talk about Trump on trade and job creation. Since history isn’t taught well, we tend to believe the Great Depression was the end result of the 1929 stock market crash. But there’s a convincing argument made that rural America took the biggest hit thanks to the effects of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. Granted, the world is a lot different and more interconnected now, but American farmers produce a lot of exports (as do chicken growers locally, as the products in demand overseas complement nicely with what we consume here.) Certainly a renegotiation of our current and proposed trade pacts is in order, but would Trump walk away from the table or just angle for any deal? And would he be against Trade Promotion Authority like he was as a candidate when he’s the president negotiating the pact? I doubt it.
And given the amount of union rank-and-file backing he seems to have, it’s no wonder he hasn’t come out more strongly for right-to-work laws, barely mentioning it during the campaign.
To many, Trump’s views on these subjects are on the outside of the range that’s acceptable to the standard GOP. And are they to the right of Hillary Clinton? For the most part, yes – but that assumes that he’s a man of his word and his business dealings suggest otherwise.
So in part 2 I will discuss the more important five issues on my scaling system, and this is where Trump really begins to sound like Hillary.
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. – Proverbs 14:34 (KJV)
As today is Sunday and I have left the site dark on Independence Day in the last few years – so this post will be atop my site for a somewhat extended period - I decided it would be fitting to use the subject of our message today as the subject of mine.
Rather than go through what my pastor said, though, I want to focus on the idea of righteousness. For Christians, the idea of what’s right mainly comes from Scripture, as the passage above clearly illustrates. But in our nation today, too often what is “right” comes from a number of different sources: a majority of nine unelected judges on the Supreme Court, a plethora of faceless bureaucrats toiling in Washington, D.C. or a state capital, or even popular culture itself. It’s said politics is downstream from culture, and I believe this is most true on the perception of what is right.
Obviously I can give a number of examples where these “rights” don’t coincide with the concept of righteousness: the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade or the Obergefell case, the muddied divide between genders enforced by the standards of the federal Department of Education, or the #lovewins movement for same-sex “marriage” come foremost to mind. With the exception of Roe v. Wade, all of these examples have come during my adult life and there is usually a generational divide between supporters and opponents of these “rights.”
It’s not my intention to be bogged down in the minutia of these issues because I’m shooting for a fairly short post suitable for a holiday weekend when people are truly thinking more about the beach, fireworks, and barbecues, but I think the generational point is worth considering, too. Despite the fact Kim’s daughter goes to a Christian school and belongs to the church youth group, she and her peers aren’t truly insulated from the cultural wasteland we live amongst.
I think it’s worth reminding the Millennials that those of us who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s had only a limited number of options for cultural awareness and entertainment, such as AM or FM radio, the few cable channels that were around (living in a rural area nowhere near a cable service area, we didn’t even have that), magazines and newspapers, or the local movie theater. I had my roster of favorite TV shows like anyone else and my particular radio stations to listen to, but my listening and viewing was limited to what broadcasters wanted to provide at a time of their choosing. (If I wasn’t home and didn’t remember to tape WKRP in Cincinnati I was out of luck until the rerun came on, or if my radio station ignored Iron Maiden until the program director decided to put it on, I wouldn’t go buy the cassette because I didn’t know about them.) Now we have the technology where anyone can be a video or music producer and have content available anywhere the internet is.
So it’s no surprise that the seductive messages of what is “cool” rarely coincide with what is righteous because “cool” is a construct built to sell products and ideas. As it stands, believing in the tenets of the Bible and living a God-fearing life definitely doesn’t meet the prevailing standard of “cool.”
But it’s my belief that America should make itself worthy of being blessed by God. By no means does this imply being a theocracy, it’s more along the lines of just having a Judeo-Christian based moral compass that most of its citizens willingly follow. The more righteous we are, it follows, the more we should be blessed. It’s worth a shot.
By Cathy Keim
In the last few years, I have frequently pondered what it must have felt like to live in the 1930s. As much as people might have tried to ignore what was happening around them, the signs were there that a major upheaval was coming with shifts of power and subsequent grabs for land, resources, and control. As a baby boomer, I grew up with the USA being at its zenith of power. There were uneasy episodes along the way such as the Vietnam War protests, the hippie drug culture, the gas lines in 1973, and the Nixon Watergate scandal, but we were a superpower and no one thought otherwise.
However, the world seems a much less certain place today. As in the 1930s, one can see signs of global shifts of power. Which miscalculation by a diplomat or a politician will be the event that triggers an avalanche from which there is no turning back?
The totalitarian impulses which propelled the world into World War Two are showing up all around us. The difference between authoritarian control and totalitarian control are immense. A banana republic is authoritarian where the generalissimo forces people to do his will, but he does not control their thoughts. A Hitler or a Stalin demands that not only you conform to his will, but that you agree with him also. Obedience is not enough: you must like doing what you are told to do.
The progressive movement in the USA has reached this point of totalitarian control. We must conform to their demands not only outwardly, but we must inwardly accept their premises. Those of us that refuse are reviled as homophobes, bigots, racists, misogynists, haters, Islamophobes, etc. The progressives believe that they are pure of heart. They really do want what is best for us, so it is their duty to force us to do their will. Since they are pure of heart, they cannot do anything that is bad. Even if things turn out poorly, their pure motives mean they never have to say they are sorry.
In addition, you must remember that the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. The run of the mill progressives may really be pure of heart useful idiots, but the powerbrokers understand that everything is about power.
It is only when you put the events of the day in this rubric that you are able to make sense of the insane situations that you regularly confront in daily news. Occasionally you may have to pinch yourself to remember that you still live in America.
The Washington Times states: The Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution this week that bans textbooks and other teaching materials that deny climate change exists or cast doubt on whether humans are to blame.
If a mom or dad questions a book that they feel is inappropriate for their child to read in a school library, they are ridiculed for wanting to ban books, but here we have a school board denying skeptics the right to question anthropogenic global warming. So much for encouraging critical thinking.
Of course, the precedent was already set when a group of 16 state Attorney Generals announced on March 29, 2016, “an unprecedented campaign to pursue companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change narrative, raising concerns over free speech and the use of state authority to punish political foes.”
Now if we deny climate change, we can be punished for not thinking correctly. Orwell wrote about thoughtcrime in a work of fiction, but this is getting scarily close to a totalitarian state and climate change is by no means the only issue which demands the correct viewpoint.
Child abuse is considered to be a bad thing, but now it is hard to know what is considered child abuse. If I expect a male child to use the boys’ bathroom and a female child to use the girls’ bathroom, then this qualifies as child abuse if the child in question thinks that he is a girl. If I try to help this child to understand his gender, then I am a horrible person. However, if I teach little children that their gender is fluid and that they can choose whether they are a girl or a boy, then I am a progressive, pure-of-heart caring person and all is well. The chaos and destruction that will come from this pure-of-heart nonsense is not their problem. The pure-of-heart are never called to account when things go awry.
The key factor in all of this is the turning of the world upside down and ridiculing those that resist. I realize more and more that every issue I address has me sounding like a hateful, bitter clinger to the old ways. This was pressed home to me vividly when I collected signatures to defeat gay marriage in Maryland. I was moved by Christian values that place the family at the center of society. As I talked to people, I watched the tide turn against marriage between one man and one woman because the progressives used the gambit that every person has the right to marry the one that they love. Why would I deny a man the right to marry the man that he loved?
Those of us that stand for the ultimate child protection that is a stable family with a mother and a father raising their children were washed away by the lie that “love” is more important. This is the same kind of upside down thinking that progressives promote when they say that it is better to abort a child than to have them enter the world unwanted. How is murder better? Who is to say that nobody wants the child, even if the mother does not?
When the world reaches the current state of affairs where there is no right to dissent from the progressive’s agenda, then it is time for people of courage and conviction to dig in and refuse to bow the knee to their self-proclaimed masters. The cognitive dissonance that surrounds us will overwhelm us and our children unless we clearly and bravely state the truth to ourselves, our families, and our communities.
Hope dies when the truth dies. People cannot live without hope. All tyrants everywhere seek to squelch the truth because then they can truly control those around them. As a free people it is our duty to speak out against the insanity that the progressives are pushing upon us. State the truth clearly and often. To do less is to acquiesce to tyranny.
By Cathy Keim
Yesterday morning I attended the 6th Annual National Day of Prayer Breakfast at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center. The Midway Room was packed with about 500 guests, and the event was the usual mix of local dignitaries, pastors, and citizens. There was the Presentation of Colors by the Color Guard of the Wicomico County Sheriff’s Office and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance led by Sheriff Mike Lewis. The Salisbury Christian School Concert Band provided breakfast music and an assortment of local leaders led the invocation, prayers, Bible readings, and singing.
All in all, it was a pretty standard ecumenical religious event. However, I know that I felt a difference. Instead of taking it for granted that we were meeting with the general approval of the majority of the citizens in our county, I wondered how many of our fellow citizens would view the event with derision or suspicion? In fact, a fellow guest shared that he had heard some folks poking fun at the gathering.
It is not just my imagination that the public’s attitude towards Christians has shifted from acceptance to suspicion. Where politicians would once attend church (at least for public view), now there is no need for that.
I was speaking to a young man about a character reference for a job just last week. In the past, his pastor would have been petitioned for a letter, but now that might not be who you want to write your reference.
The guest speaker at the prayer breakfast was Randy Singer, a lawyer and pastor, from Virginia Beach. He addressed the change in our nation by comparing us to Rome in the time of Nero and the Apostle Paul’s imprisonment. Even those of us with public school educations know that Nero was one of the very worst Roman emperors. From that unflattering comparison, Mr. Singer assured us that while our country is in distress, we are not without hope.
People can endure much, but when hope is lost, people languish. Mr. Singer pointed to the lengthy difficulties under which Paul had suffered for years and yet this is what Paul wrote from prison in Philippians 1:3-8 (NIV):
I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
Christians in America, we are to have hope that whether we are in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, we all share in God’s grace with the Apostle Paul. I do not know how many more public meetings of Christians will be endorsed by our elected leaders. The need for Christians to stand firm on multiple principles such as marriage, gender, pro-life, assisted suicide, and freedom of speech, just to name a few, will be put to the test if you have escaped thus far.
Just stating the Biblical truth that marriage is between a man and a woman can jeopardize your employment. Countless companies and organizations are coercing employees to submit to seminars to prevent “discrimination.” If somebody objects, then they are forced to take more courses or be fired. We can lament the change in our country and feel discouraged, or we can emulate the Apostle Paul and look to our Lord Jesus Christ with hope that we are living exactly in the time that God intended and that He will see us through the murky path ahead.
Yes, America has changed and many of us would say not for the better, but we are to share the hope that is within us, not to obsess on the decline of the nation that we love.
Where once the civil religion and Christianity were viewed as the almost the same thing, now Christianity is portrayed as repressive, old-fashioned, boring, or worse. The materialists, atheists, and progressives do not need to wrap themselves in a civil religion to gain acceptance. We are in a new time and place in our country or so the materialists, atheists, and progressives would say.
However, God gave this promise to King Solomon in ancient Israel because He knows that proud men will overreach and when they do this is what must be done:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
II Chronicles 7:14
Christians, continue to pray, work, and engage in your community, not with fear or a sense of loss for what was, but with the hope of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are living right where we are meant to be.
Over the last couple weeks I have been trying to get a reading on who I would like to be my Senator from the great state of Maryland. (Spoiler alert: Donna Edwards and Chris Van Hollen ain’t going to cut it.) It’s been a process of trying to get questions answered, checking websites, and watching some of the debates in order to figure out who the best candidate for me would be.
There are 14 Republicans running for the Senate seat, a number which is unusually high. (In previous cycles, it was closer to 10 candidates.) Of course, with that many candidates in a statewide race it becomes apparent early on who has the most legitimate shot at winning. Granted, this has been helped somewhat by media perception, such as which hopefuls are invited to debates, but realistically only about half of those 14 candidates have any real shot – the rest are just ballot filler. In fact, when I asked the questions of candidates only 12 of the 14 had good e-mails, and two of those 12 have no website insofar as I can tell. (Another has a website with just a front page and no functionality). Sadly, the pair without websites are two of those who answered my questions – but the larger question is how you can beat someone who has $3.6 million in the bank like Chris Van Hollen does? You need money to get your message out.
By the time you separate the wheat from the chaff you get about a half-dozen somewhat serious candidates, with a couple on a lower tier that are running campaigns more suited to a Congressional level. Greg Holmes is one, with another being Anthony Seda, who has pointed out he’s not accepting contributions. Noble, but suicidal in the real world of politics. Let me repeat: you need money to get your message out.
So in my estimation, the race comes down to five: Richard Douglas, Joe Hooe, Chrys Kefalas, Kathy Szeliga, and Dave Wallace. In the last debate I watched there were only three participants as Hooe and Wallace were not invited. Another debate featured all but Wallace, while the Goucher College debate had Holmes, Hooe, and Wallace along with Douglas and Kefalas (Szeliga skipped this debate for a Maryland GOP event.)
So here is how I would categorize the contenders, in alphabetical order.
Richard Douglas is the only one of the five to have run a statewide campaign before, but I’m not seeing that pointed out as an advantage. He also has the benefit of experience working in the Senate, but in this topsy-turvy electoral year he’s forced to run more as an outsider because that’s the political mood. His campaign to me has been an intriguing concoction of a hawkish foreign policy combined with a populist economic outlook. He’s one of only two of the five who has answered my list of questions, and as one would expect I found his answers to be strongest on foreign policy, immigration, and to some extent the role of government. (I also know Richard has religious freedom bona fides.)
In 2012 when Richard ran for Senate and lost to Dan Bongino, I noted he would have been my 1A candidate after Bongino, who I endorsed. I would have been as comfortable with him winning as the eventual nominee, and at this point he’s done nothing to change that assessment given this field. Still, he speaks the language of an insider and that may hurt him.
Joe Hooe has made his key issue that of immigration, advocating for a paid guest worker program he claims will raise $80 billion. He claims it will make taxpayers out of illegal aliens, but my question is whether we could track such a program when we have no clue how many people are in the country illegally because they crossed the border and how many are illegal because they overstayed their visa. And if they refuse to pay to work, how will we enforce this new fee? If they are here illegally, then I doubt they’re suddenly going to have a “come to Jesus” moment and decide to follow a law that will cost them $1,000.
One thing I do like about Hooe is his advocacy for apprenticeship programs, but to me that is more of a state concern than a federal concern. Perhaps it’s the aspect of having to be elected by the people (which was not the original intent of the Founding Fathers) but I think all of these candidates conflate the roles of the federal and state governments to some degree. Education is one of many areas where there should be no government role.
Chrys Kefalas has a background that I think would serve him well, particularly since he’s involved with the manufacturing field. He does well on trade and job creation, but my question is whether he would be anything different than what we have now concerning the social issues leg of the Reaganesque three-legged conservative stool. Surely he (and some others) argue that Maryland has settled on its position regarding social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean we should stop working toward Judeo-Christian values where life begins at conception and marriage is between one man and one woman. It’s not quite enough to keep me from voting for Chrys on a general election ballot but many thousands of voters realize a two-legged stool doesn’t work.
Maryland Republicans run into trouble when they try to out-liberal the Democrats on certain issues: if you’re a voter who’s going to vote based on the belief that the unborn is just a blob of tissue and no harm comes to society when anyone can marry anyone else they want – and why stop at one, right? – it’s not likely they’re going to be conservative everywhere else. Meanwhile, you just dispirit the percentage of GOP voters who have that passion for Judeo-Christian values. “I’m only voting for President,” they’ll say. It can be argued that Larry Hogan’s victory was an example of putting social issues on the back burner, but aside from Hogan getting the benefit of a depressed liberal Democrat turnout in 2014, ignoring social issues doesn’t play as well on a national race.
Kathy Szeliga is the “establishment” candidate trying desperately to portray herself as an everyday outsider. With the vast majority of Maryland’s General Assembly Republicans favoring her – mainly because she’s served as a Delegate for six years – she also has received the most attention and support in the race. Using my monoblogue Accountability Project as a guide, her lifetime score of 83 would put her in the upper third of those who have served with her over the years, although her score was more mediocre in 2015 (a 72 rating.) She’s also served as one of the faces of General Assembly Republicans - witness this video, one of a string she has done with fellow Delegate Susan Aumann:
Having said all that, there are two main things that disturb me about Szeliga’s campaign. For one, she has no “issues” page on her website, and I always subscribe to the theory that if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. (The same is true for Kefalas.) However, she is reasonably good about answering questions and participating in debates.
But on that point you can tell she is a professional politician. Most of Kathy’s answers seem to be empty platitudes about her life and experiences being a mom, business owner, etc. rather than substantive discussions of the issue at hand. (On the other hand, Richard Douglas has a tendency to talk over the level of the average voter.) Not to be patronizing, but I suspect someone is telling Kathy women voters who would normally be afraid to vote Republican need to be addressed in a non-threatening way – never mind the Democrat who survives the primary will try and paint Szeliga (or any of the others, including the more socially moderate Kefalas) as a stereotypical Republican anyhow.
Dave Wallace, out of the five candidates, seems to be the most conservative. Having read a lengthy treatise of his, most of what he has to say makes sense on a policy level and for that reason I’m leaning his way at this point.
Yet having said that, we also know that Dave lost to a likely opponent by 22 points in a district which is, admittedly based on registration, a D+23 district as it currently stands. In that respect, though, it’s not as bad as the state at large (which is D+32.) We have seen this movie before: Dan Bongino lost by 30 in a 3-way race in 2012, Eric Wargotz by 26 in 2010, Michael Steele by 10 in 2006, E.J. Pipkin by 31 points in 2004, and so forth. I really don’t want a 30-point loss again; unfortunately, too many Maryland voters are stubborn like a mule in voting against their self-interest. (If they “got it,” the most conservative candidate would always win.)
Dave seems like a nice guy and a policy wonk, which I like. But the question is whether he can be a bulldog and attack the Democratic candidate for the failure of the last seven years.
This may not necessarily apply to Dave, although I’m using his space, but I don’t like talk about bipartisanship from any Republican hopeful because Democrats at a national level will nearly always take the hand you reach out to them with, twist your arm off, and proceed to beat you with it. Anyone remember “read my lips?” One of the reasons the bulk of Republicans are fed up with the political system is the lack of intestinal fortitude they see from the politicians they sent to Washington with the message “it’s always been done this way” is not cutting it anymore.
When the TEA Party wave in 2010 put the GOP back in charge of the House, the excuse was “we only control one half of one-third of the government.” Indeed, a do-nothing Senate was a problem. But when the do-nothing Senate was flipped to Republican control in 2014, we still heard excuses about why we couldn’t get anything done. If you want a reason for the rise of Donald Trump, you don’t need to look much further. (Never mind Trump’s not conservative and the bulk of his policy statements have the depth of a cookie sheet. He talks tough.)
If I were to rank my choices in this horserace at the moment, it would go Wallace and Douglas fairly close going into the final turn, with Kefalas a neck ahead of Szeliga for third on the outside and Hooe bringing up the rear. (The rest are chewing hay in the infield.) As it stands now, I will make my endorsement the second Sunday before the primary (April 17.)
In the coming days I will rank the three contenders for the First District Congressional seat. [Yes, there are four Republicans on the ballot but Jonathan Goff is such a strong Trump supporter that he is disqualified. (#NeverTrump strikes again.)] That race is a little different because the incumbent is a Republican so the question becomes whether we want a more straight-ahead conservative or someone who has the reputation of being more liberty-minded? I’ll do some research and hear from one of the three candidates in person in the coming days to help me decide.
Update: Want more? Here you go.
Lately I’ve been mulling over the idea of red state vs. blue state and how both are impacting society. But there is an element which seems to be missing among the arguments we have regarding conservative vs. liberal.
Once upon a time in America, it was just automatically assumed that we were one nation under God. More than a two-word addition to the Pledge of Allegiance dating back to 1954, for most Americans adhering to the tenets of their religion was second nature. Thus, actions which were deemed immoral were frowned upon: selling alcohol on Sundays, having children out of wedlock, and swearing in public were just some of the actions which ran afoul of our sensitivities. Then, as now, we were all sinners who fell short of the grace of God but it seems like we as Americans tried harder to stay in line in that bygone era.
Naturally, over time the “blue laws” were gradually erased, children who were born out of wedlock lost the derisive moniker “bastard” and became commonplace, and the entertainment industry began a contest to see who could get away with racier and racier content. As this devolution of society in the name of “tolerance” continued we were ordered to accept “alternative” lifestyles. Christians of today in general, and parents who wish to ”Train up a child in the way he should go,” to borrow from Proverbs 22:6, face an increasingly treacherous minefield of having to monitor their kids’ entertainment, education, and circle of friends. Unlike any other era in America, Christians are being marginalized and segmented in society as just another subset: Mary went to the Christian store to purchase Christian books and movies while listening to the Christian radio station.
In his Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky once wrote that agitators should pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In many respects, that has occurred with the term Christian because it is far too often used as an adjective. With a little help from the society and culture, we have set ourselves apart from the rest, yet on a cultural level it has led to the perception that to be Christian is to be inferior – “oh, so-and-so is just a Christian artist” or “this student went to some Christian school.” With a wink and a nod, we are signaled that this hick is simply one of the unwashed masses – look at how elites think of those who come from the “Bible Belt.”
So why is that implied to be a bad thing? In most cases, it’s because they vote for conservative candidates. States in the deep South began shifting from Democrat to Republican a half-century ago, with the election of Ronald Reagan finishing the shift. In large part this was because Democrats embraced the cultural changes with which Christians disagreed. The consequence: as a generation steeped in traditional values has died away, those who had lesser mooring in absolute truths have steered society in an even more radical direction.
For example, I didn’t know what “gay” meant (in the modern usage of the word) until I was in high school – I just assumed boys liked girls and vice versa. Much of that was because in my youth we weren’t constantly exposed to the homosexual lifestyle through the media. No Christian couple would have run afoul of the law for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because extremely few even considered the concept of same-sex nuptials to be a viable one. That wasn’t on the radar screen in 1982 when I graduated high school.
But move forward a generation or so and churches are being threatened with the loss of their tax-exempt status if they refuse to participate in same-sex weddings. Some churches in more moderate denominations have already knuckled under, but most remain standing against this practice. Yet, cowed by the media and radical groups, the Republican Party doesn’t seem to have the gumption to fight anymore against gay marriage, abortion, or the downward redefinition of deviancy.
So where can we turn?
The inspiration for the phrase “white state” comes from the Christian flag, which is mainly white as that color symbolizes purity. And while in print white denotes the absence of color, as a function of light white reflects all colors equally. To me this is quite symbolic and much more inclusive than a rainbow flag will ever be, for a rainbow separates colors while white blends all together. Yet a Christian flag is not all white for that would signify surrender, and we must never surrender.
And what seems to be setting us apart from the “red vs. blue” narrative is a faith in God rather than government. At one time, a key social function now relegated to government was taken care of through the church. Christians still take care of the poor and infirm to a degree, but many more of the downtrodden rely on the welfare state that didn’t exist even 100 years ago. In a two-pronged attack, government stepped in to take care of the poor while freeing their conscience from many of the behavioral obligations placed on them by the church.
In short, we need to once again create a situation where the state is subservient to the people, who in turn are subservient to God. At that point red and blue aren’t as relevant as wrong and right, with the arbiter being God’s Word. By no means am I suggesting we should have a theocracy; however, there are many millions who could use a gentle course correction for their lives and making it more difficult to prosper from poor choices through the heavy hand of the government is a good way to motivate them.
Yet this is the place where we Christians need to set ourselves apart and create a united front in order to work through the system we have in place. Of course, the other side knows this as well so they try and keep us divided like the colors in the rainbow flag and dispirited to keep us from being motivated to change. Victories may be few and slow in coming, but in America we have had revivals every so often and we are overdue for another. It’s time to shine all our colors together and be indivisible under God.
The curious case of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk of courts who has defied the Supreme Court in the name of her religious beliefs, has sparked a lot of argument on both sides.
On the one hand, you have the people who claim the SCOTUS decision is the law of the land and Davis is not doing the job she took an oath to do as an elected official. (The interesting sidebar to me is that she’s an elected Democrat, but suddenly that’s not important. I could imagine what it would be like if she were elected as a Republican, but I digress.) If she doesn’t want to do her job – and issuing marriage licenses is part of the job – she should resign, they say.
But then you have the Davis supporters who are applauding her determination in the face of being jailed for contempt of court. (Then again, she’s an elected official so she has a job waiting for her. I’m not so sure those under her who are reluctantly doing these marriage licenses have that option, which is why they are complying.) These supporters also believe that SCOTUS is making law instead of interpreting it as they are supposed to, particularly since the Commonwealth of Kentucky defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. As has often been the case, they continue, it’s five unelected judges overturning the will of the people.
Yet I find it interesting that Rowan County is suddenly a gay marriage hotbed. Admittedly, I have very limited experience with the state except for traveling through it en route to another destination as both a kid going to and from Florida to see my grandparents and as an adult returning from Missouri to visit relatives. If I have spent 24 hours in the state in my life I would be surprised, despite the fact I stayed overnight in the Cincinnati area one time. So I assumed Rowan County was home to Lexington or Louisville; instead it is a rural county in the eastern part of the state, bisected by I-64 and home to Morehead State University. Maybe it’s scenic – I really don’t have any lasting memory of driving through there, although I have – but I can’t see why someone would come from another place to get married there.
I also marvel at those who believe the five Supremes who made up the Obergefell majority got it right. If so, I guess they are fine with “separate but equal” and blacks not being citizens. Those were Supreme Court edicts as well.
Personally, I think it’s just like the cases of the florist, cake creator, and others who cited their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage in refusing service. Somehow that small group of activists caught word that Davis was not playing along with their desire to normalize same-sex marriage so it was decided to make an example of her.
Further, I think it’s the first step of a battle that’s going to move from individuals to institutions. What if the same-sex couple who just got their marriage license wants to get married in a particular church, one which believes that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman? Would the Supreme Court step in there?
The end game that is in play is twofold: one part is to eliminate the tax-exempt status churches enjoy, which would create great financial harm to many smaller congregations, while the other is to further eliminate the influence religion has by conditioning the God-fearing to suffer under the perception of being considered a bigot, making them afraid to speak out. At the exit of our church there’s a sign about entering the mission field, so the job of the radical gay lobby seems to be that of pushing the seed to stony places and thorns.
At best, gay marriage should be a state issue. We in Maryland voted – unwisely, in my opinion, but the narrow majority ruled – to make it the law of the state. Other states may not want it, but the hammer of the SCOTUS came down and said they had to, ignoring the Tenth Amendment because I don’t see anything in my copy of the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to determine who can or can’t be married. Yet we have adopted this religious construct as a legal term, one which confers certain rights. (And that’s why I had no real issue with civil unions.)
Proponents of gay marriage often tell those of us on the “one man, one woman” side that if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one. They snivelingly ask, “how is a gay couple getting married hurting you?” and tell us that marriage between opposite-sex couples isn’t doing all that well considering the divorce rate.
Yet I have to ask back: what benefits are we getting from gay marriage? They cannot naturally have children, which will cause further splintering of the already-tattered family unit because now a third person will be involved as a surrogate mother or sperm donor.
But to me that is small potatoes compared to the Pandora’s box we are opening. If you are a man who can marry another man, why can’t you marry a child, even a child of yours? Or why not two so you can have one of each gender? When it’s all about #lovewins, thoughts of the legacy we leave behind are out of sight and out of mind.
Based on choices we make and sometimes cruel twists of fate, in life we cannot always get what we want. Regardless of how much I dreamed about it or how many hours I spent playing in the park and the backyard, I’m not looking back on a Hall of Fame baseball career because I didn’t have the skills to be anymore than a benchwarmer in JV baseball. Similarly, the young man in Missouri who considers himself a girl is still a guy even though he wears women’s clothes – no matter how much he may wish it so, he can’t change biology regardless of how many hormones and medical procedures he may endure.
Perhaps one is born gay, which to me as it relates to marriage falls under cruel twist of fate. There’s nothing that says they can’t have meaningful relationships and share their lives together. I just don’t believe they can call themselves married because that’s reserved for the union of one man and one woman.
Since the Supreme Court is always right, why not go “separate but equal” – marriage licenses for opposite-sex and civil union licenses for same-sex. Everyone’s happy and maybe Kim Davis can get out of jail.
I don’t think I even had this down as a concern four or eight years ago, but as I get older and grow in my faith these things become more important to me. So I will devote a valuable eight points to these issues, which I would loosely define as abortion, preservation of traditional marriage as in only between a man and woman, and religious freedom issues such as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Ideally, abortion would only be legal in very rare circumstances, marriage would return to being between one man and one woman with same-sex couples allowed civil unions to grant them a similar legal status to marriage (but not co-opting the term), and those who have religious conscience would be allowed to follow their faith directive. I understand that this might open a can of worms insofar as the traditions of certain religions, particularly Islam, so it should be understood that America was based and founded on Judeo-Christian principles and our laws and customs tend to follow those. I see nothing wrong with that course.
When a candidate believes “2016 will be the religious liberty election” and scorns fellow Republicans about running from the fight to “rearrange their sock drawers,” there’s a pretty good chance he will rate highly, and Ted Cruz does. I’m also not worried about his abortion stance if leftist ninnies are screaming about it, for example, questioning the fact January 22 is a day of infamy among pro-lifers. Cruz also turns around the tired leftist “war on women” meme, calling unfettered abortion the “real war on women.”
Total score for Cruz – 8.0 of 8.
Very close behind Cruz is Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, whose state is considered the most pro-life in the country. Just like Cruz, his stance on abortion drives the Leftist ninnies batty, as they seem to forget their idea was to keep abortions safe, legal, and rare. Two out of three ain’t bad. He’s called out the inside-the-Beltway crowd for their cowardice as well.
As the governor of a state that had its definition of marriage between a man and a woman overturned by the Supreme Court, he was reluctant to follow the directive, waiting for the court with jurisdiction over the state to actually overturn the will of the people before relenting. Now he wants a change in the Constitution.
A recent action, though, would seem to bolster the argument against the religious freedom executive order he signed. But as usual, the media got it wrong: Westboro protesters were free to demonstrate, but Jindal simply ordered a strict enforcement of state laws which already prohibit disrupting funerals.
Total score for Jindal – 7.9 of 8.
Coming in just behind Cruz and Jindal is Mike Huckabee. Mike has no problem defending life; in fact, he responded to an obvious “gotcha” question about deploying the FBI or federal troops to stop abortion by curtly saying, “we’ll see when I become President.” The Left had a field day with it, as one would expect. Huckabee also decried the “manufactured crisis” regarding Indiana’s original religious freedom law and vowed to use executive authority to prevent it.
Huckabee also blasted the Obergefell ruling, calling it an “out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny.” You would figure a man with Huckabee’s background would do well here and indeed he does, with just the slightest hint of apprehension from me about how far he would take executive power. He’s also far more vague on his website than he is in the press.
Total score for Huckabee – 7.8 of 8.
Much of what I needed to know about the plans of Rick Santorum when it came to social issues came in this neat little statement. I also knew from his last run he was pro-life, yet he complains about the media treatment he gets. Well, when most of the media is left-wing it’s what you need to expect.
So I have no problem with the issue standards – which are very much like those who come in ahead of him – just the whining.
Total score for Santorum – 7.6 of 8.
After reading up on Rick Perry, I decided to give him a score that is about halfway between Bobby Jindal, who could argue with Perry’s claim about being the most pro-life governor (and has the laws to back it up), and Ben Carson, because both Perry and Carson have misspoke on gay marriage. A defender of state’s rights, Rick defended the Indiana religious freedom law, signed one for his own state, and decried the Obergefell decision because it usurped 10th Amendment authority.
Unlike the others above him, though, I don’t see Rick using the bully pulpit as much on these issues.
Total score for Perry – 7.0 of 8.
Overall, I think Marco Rubio will be fine on social issues – he’s pro-life, has a compelling story to tell, and seems to have the right idea on the Obergefell ruling. Several others wish to fight this at the state level, too. He’s also good on religious freedom. I also like how he’s given space on his campaign site to these issues, although his unusual layout makes it hard to find.
He doesn’t seem to get as much credit on these as others in front of him. In that respect he’s like Rick Perry but doesn’t have the advantage of being able to pass laws. In the Senate Rubio is more well-known for immigration than social issues, and that holds him back a little in both categories.
Total score for Rubio – 6.4 of 8.
Ben Carson makes no bones about it: he is “unabashedly and entirely pro-life.” Obviously his perspective as a physician helps there, and much of his appeal comes from those who make social issues paramount. He also supports religious freedom legislation like Indiana’s original RFRA law, which supposedly allowed discrimination against same-sex couples so they “clarified” it.
The problems have come when he tripped over his tongue on being gay, and conceded the Supreme Court made gay marriage “the law of the land” (although he personally favors civil unions in lieu of same-sex nuptials, which is my stance as well.) His comments and subsequent walking back of them hurt him a little bit here as well, but overall this is by far his strongest category to date.
Total score for Carson – 6.0 of 8.
Trying to straddle a line between libertarianism and faith can be difficult, and it puts Rand Paul a little below the top tier of candidates on this issue. He’s admirably pro-life and gets it for the most part on religious freedom, although he was slow to defend the Indiana law that should have been just what he wanted: key social and moral issues left up to the states. But as long as taxation and child-rearing legalities are dependent on marriage, you can’t simply take government out of it as it stands currently. On the other hand, sound thinking in other areas can work toward that goal, which is why I don’t deduct as much on Rand as I do for others who simply wash their hands of the issue (see below.)
Total score for Paul – 5.5 of 8.
During his tenure as governor of Florida, Jeb Bush was placed in the unique position of defending the life of Terri Schiavo, who was the unwitting subject of a legal tug-of-war between her estranged husband and the remainder of her family. Ultimately he lost that fight, but overall Jeb has a relatively sound pro-life record.
Where I begin to differ with Jeb is his “evolving” (read: retreating from the truth) on marriage, particularly true in his choice of advisers. At one time he decried the idea of homosexuals having “special legal protection,” but now is fine with letting states decide and not amending the Constitution to declare marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He also backed away a little on Indiana’s RFRA law after the outcry from the gay lobby. His brother retreated from a conservative stance more and more as he went on as President, and I fear Jeb may start from an even worse position despite his assertion that his faith will guide him. At this juncture he’s only slightly better than average.
Total score for Bush – 4.5 of 8.
But I see him shrinking from the fight in other important areas, telling the Republicans “it’s time to move on” from traditional marriage and stating Ohio doesn’t need a religious freedom law despite the fact he backed the federal one as a Congressman in 1993. Just wait, governor, you will. As he backs away from those positions, it makes me wonder if he has the fortitude to remain on the side of the unborn. If you value working across the aisle I wonder about that.
Total score for Kasich – 4.5 of 8.
Scott Walker joins this crowd in the middle with much the same resume as Kasich – a staunch record for life that includes a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act he signed days before his announcement, but ambivalent opposition to same-sex marriage (perhaps due to family concerns) and a lack of desire to enact a religious freedom law in Wisconsin.
So he gets the same score as Kasich and Jeb Bush, who is cut from a similar cloth.
Total score for Walker – 4.5 of 8.
Carly Fiorina is very good on the pro-life front, noting on the trail that her mother-in-law was advised to abort the man who would become her husband. On that front she’s also unafraid to call out liberals for their hypocrisy. She’s also on the right side when it comes to religious freedom.
But, in the same breath, she’s going the wrong way on gay marriage, and the lefties (who would back Hillary anyway) are happy about it. I’m also disappointed she doesn’t make any statement on these issues on her campaign page, although it is short on a lot of specifics in the first place. And even though she is misled about the crux of the gay marriage issue, at least she will disagree without being disagreeable.
Total score for Fiorina – 4.2 of 8.
Maybe Chris Christie came late to the party, but as governor of New Jersey he touts his pro-life record. It’s relatively close to the mainstream, with the usual “rape, incest, and life of the mother” exceptions. But he’s not fought hard on same-sex marriage, meekly allowing his state’s supreme court to enact it and telling us that, while he didn’t agree with it, same-sex marriage was now “the law of the land” as Ben Carson did. He also would not support county clerks following their conscience, which tells me he’s no big advocate for religious freedom. He supported Indiana Gov. Mike Pence on a personal basis, but was backing the changed law.
Total score for Christie – 4.0 of 8.
I decided, after a little bit of thought, that while Lindsey Graham is earnest in his pro-life beliefs and deserves a lot of credit for trying to enact a federal Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act - anyone who says in one breath they are for traditional marriage and religious freedom but in the next advises us to wave the white (or maybe it should be rainbow) flag and “move forward” because there’s little chance at success. Instead, he pledges to fight on religious liberty.
But if he’s willing to throw in the towel there, when will he stand and fight? As I kept reading and considering, he kept sliding down my list.
Total score for Graham – 4.0 of 8.
I’m probably being a little unfair to Jim Gilmore since he just got into the race, so he hasn’t made a priority of staking out positions on all the issues. However, in looking back mainly to his abortive 2008 campaign, I found he has an eight-week window where abortion is okay. And while he was against same-sex marriage and civil unions back in 2007, so was Barack Obama. One thing that troubles me is this 2013 interview where he seems to be cautioning Republicans to stay away from social issues. That, though, is the conservative base and they need to be fired up in order to get to the ballot box.
Total score for Gilmore – 2.0 of 8.
While he leads in the polls for now, Donald Trump is near the bottom of my list. The only thing that saves him from the bottom is his relatively recent pro-life conversion. And even though he vows to be the “greatest representative for Christians” if elected he doesn’t seem comfortable with the evangelicals and was hesitant to state his opposition to gay marriage. There are far better alternatives as far as social issues go.
Total score for Trump – 1.6 of 8.
It’s no surprise George Pataki is at the bottom of my list given he is pro-”choice.” Yet he doubled down on bad decisions by blasting the Indiana religious freedom law, and is fine with same-sex marriage being the law of some of the land, saying let the states decide. Basically that takes us back to a pre-Obergefell status and it’s easier to fight at that level, so I guess I can give him a little something for that.
Total score for Pataki – 0.5 of 8.
I need to catch Kasich and Gilmore up on previous issues (education, Second Amendment, and energy for Gilmore) so once I do that I will move on to the next category, trade and job creation.
I didn’t figure it would take too long.
Once the floodgates had been opened, I knew it was only a matter of time before someone would try and push the envelope.
The next frontier will be that of “consenting adults.” Just wait until the first person citing his religion wants to marry a preteen under the age of consent. It will be discrimination to not allow this person his wish, after all it is love and “love wins,” does it not?
Methinks that the Supreme Court has left us a legacy of banana peels and jagged cliffs.
I still marvel at the lightning speed by which we went from one state court decreeing that marriage licenses should be given to same-sex couples (in a split 4-3 decision) to having it become the law of the land in all 50 states in less than a dozen years. Aside from fighting an actual war with bullets and fatalities, it’s rare to see such a pace of change.
And where once the concept wasn’t polled, now about 3 in 5 Americans are supportive of same-sex “marriage.” That simply means 3 in 5 are victims of the constant propaganda, although maybe I should be encouraged that 2 in 5 still apparently believe in the word of God.
But then I’m just a “hater” because I believe marriage remains between one man and one woman. We Christians are funny that way, I suppose.
Simply put, it’s been a brutal week for those who believe in right in America.
First of all, those of us in Maryland who had been anywhere from pleased to excited that the state elected a Republican governor when it was thought impossible found out Larry Hogan was not superhuman, just flawed and prone to health ailments like the rest of us. We all hope that he can beat back cancer and finish out his term, but the nagging question will surely remain if he chooses to run for re-election in 2018.
But that paled in comparison to having a Supreme Court which can’t read plain language in the law but can elect to reshape the meaning of words to suit a politically correct fancy. Aside from Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, the SCOTUS blew it twice.
Here’s the problem with both instances: in each we had a varying number of states that chose to do their own thing. In the former instance, most of the states elected to go with the federal Obamacare exchange; in theory giving up the premium subsidy that was supposed to be a sweetener of the pot for Obamacare. Most of these had no desire to set up a state exchange, while a few saw the trainwreck that was Obamacare coming. (Just look at all the issues Maryland had in setting up its state exchange as a prime example.) It was a key flaw among many in the law but six Justices decided the intention was there and states without their own exchanges could still take advantage of the federal tax break. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
So now we’ll have Democrats crowing that it’s the law of the land and that we should deal with it. If this is so then I guess all those exemptions built into the law for various groups and businesses should be immediately eliminated, too. (I also wish they felt that way about illegal immigration.) I’m not naive enough to believe that has any chance at occurring, but it seems to me that states should be taking the lead. After all, the first state to have an Obamacare-style insurance mandate was Massachusetts and that was their right. No one from the federal judiciary stopped them from trying it, but let Arizona try to enforce federal law on border security and immigration and all hell breaks loose.
And then we have the gay “marriage” decision. No court is going to tell me that marriage is anything other than between a man and a woman, period, end of sentence. Granted, some churches accept that particular ceremony and I suppose that’s their right, as far-fetched as that may appear to be. I’m not ashamed to meet my Maker and say that I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman – some may call me a bigot, but they can hang on to any delusion they want.
Yet we went through this in Maryland – the gay lobby tried and failed a couple times to get the same-sex marriage bill through the General Assembly before they conned a couple centrist RINOs into voting for the bill (note they had more than enough Democrats who could have voted for it, but there were some who wouldn’t touch it.) It passed by one or two votes, thousands upon thousands of concerned citizens managed to get it on the ballot via a referendum, and it squeaked by after a President changed his mind and it had the good fortune to be on the ballot in a high-turnout year. (If it was on the ballot this year I suspect the referendum would have gone the other way.) The point is, though, that Maryland made this decision. It was the wrong one, but now in all but one or two cases (Maryland being one, and I think Minnesota the other) the will of the people has been thwarted somewhere by a state or federal court. Either you had a case like California where voters ended the practice only to have it restored by an activist court or you have the SCOTUS decision today that eliminated the preference of the 14 states where same-sex “marriage” was not on the books.
And again I come back to the fact that states don’t seem to have any autonomy anymore when it comes to social issues. Over the last half-century states that had laws against abortion, gay marriage, and various other “blue laws” have had them taken away by societal mores and activist judges. The question is where this all stops. Are states now just lines on a map as Maryland counties seem to be as they are sucked deeper and deeper into the Annapolis-based morass?
The other sad event held over from last week was the Charleston church shooting, which was apparently caused by a Confederate flag. At least this is what you would be led to believe from the coverage. If South Carolina wants to remove it from their statehouse lawn it’s their business – however, if any state is tied in with the War Between the States it would be South Carolina since the battle began there. So being in the Confederacy is part of their history, just as the behind-the-scenes struggle to keep Maryland in the Union is part of ours. Both Maryland and Delaware were slave states.
Yet there’s something else about this whole scenario that I find interesting. The stated purpose of Dylann Roof in opening fire in that church was to begin a race war. In most cases where someone strikes out against oppression, though, it is generally from the side being oppressed – hence, you have groups which range from relatively peaceful like the NAACP to more radical entities akin to the Black Panthers all working to advance the black race. Roof may have felt intimidated by his perception that whites were getting the short end of the stick, but in the wake of nonstop coverage of Ferguson and Baltimore it’s not a giant leap to come to that conclusion.
But rather than postulate about the typical role reversal and saying what if a black gunman entered a white church, perhaps you should ponder this: whites kill hundreds of blacks a day all over the nation and hardly a word is said. The biggest race war being perpetrated right now is blacks killing themselves, whether through homicide or abortion. Instead of going on a wild goose chase and blaming the flag of a failed insurrection of 150 years ago – during which the slaves that were freed were only those in states which had seceded, not the border states which stayed in the Union – each of us needs to look inward and ask ourselves if this is really the republic we intended to live in.
America has changed while most of us were sleeping. It’s time to wake up.
By Cathy Keim
On May 20, 2015 I received an email from the American Freedom Defense Initiative announcing that they are buying ads on Washington, D.C. buses and train dioramas.
AFDI President Pamela Geller said in a statement:
Because the media and the cultural and political elites continue to self-enforce the Sharia without the consent of the American people by refusing to show any depictions of Muhammad or showing what it was in Texas that had jihadists opening fire, we are running an ad featuring the winning cartoon by former Muslim Bosch Fawstin from our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas.
The attack on the event drew a lot of criticism aimed not at the jihadists, but at Pamela Geller and AFDI for hosting such a “provocative” contest. In this convoluted way of thinking, the jihadists could not be held responsible for their attack because they were provoked into it!
Here is the ad so that you can see for yourself what the fuss is about.
While this controversy is important in its own right, the following quote from Pamela Geller made me think of another first amendment issue that we are facing:
Putting up with being offended is essential in a pluralistic society in which people differ on basic truths. If a group will not bear being offended without resorting to violence, that group will rule unopposed while everyone else lives in fear, while other groups curtail their activities to appease the violent group. This results in the violent group being able to tyrannize the others.
The progressives have been very eager to push gay marriage on the American people. The Supreme Court ruling that many expect to legalize gay marriage in every state should come down this summer. If or when that happens, do not think that this is over. The gay marriage fight is really not about gay marriage at all: it is about destroying marriage and the family unit and replacing it with the government.
If it were only about being able to be with the partner of their choosing, then why do we have the vindictive attacks on Christian photographers, bakers, and florists that decline to participate in gay marriage ceremonies? Why is this issue being pushed so hard?
The gay mafia has not resorted to chopping off heads, but it has put many Christian business people through a hellish experience resulting in fines and losing their business because they did not want to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.
As a reminder, the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is true whether the speech is politically correct or not.
Americans are facing tough choices on First Amendment topics. If we do not resist the onslaught to demonize any open discussion of what Sharia requires of Muslims and how that is not compatible with the Constitution, then we will soon be silenced on any topic when threatened. For example, besides saying that you cannot draw Mohammad, Sharia law says that women are not equal to men. It allows men to have four wives. It also says that if you convert from Islam, you are to be killed. Now how can that be reconciled with our Constitution?
Yes, we can draw pictures of Mohammad in the USA and we have an obligation to do so to show that we will not back down on our First Amendment rights.
Christians have the obligation to state the Biblical position on marriage. Marriage is only between one man and one woman. If the Supreme Court declares marriage to be something else, then the religious freedom that we have known will be gone because rather than choosing another baker, photographer, or florist, the gay mafia will seek to destroy and intimidate anyone that does not fall into line and state that gay marriage is as good or better than heterosexual marriage.
Tolerance in both situations is a one-way street. If you do what the bully says, then he will tolerate you. If you do not toe the line, then he will seek to destroy you.
Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, states:
Religious liberty is under direct threat. Just days ago the Solicitor General of the United States served notice before the Supreme Court that the liberties of religious institutions will be an open and unavoidable question. Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.
The totalitarian impulses behind Sharia enforcers and erotic liberty advocates both result in the same end: the loss of personal freedom. Our country was founded on the belief that all men are created equal and this came from the Biblical worldview that all men are created in the image of God. This profound concept is what led to the birth of our country.
If we walk away from this truth, then we also walk away from America as we know her.
Mohler points out: Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one.
So draw a cartoon and support marriage between one man and one woman or soon you may find that you can do neither. If everybody draws a cartoon and all Christians stand up for marriage, then it will be much harder for the jihadists to kill all of us or for the gay mafia to destroy every business that doesn’t agree with them, but if we are cowed by the threat of violence, then the First Amendment may still be in the Constitution – but it will not be relevant.