Month Archives: March 2012

Dick Cheneys Change of Heart

by Robert Morrison

March 30, 2012

Liberals have been complaining about Cheney ever since Bush v. Gore. And they’ve wanted him to have a change of heart. Now, he has a change of heart. And they are still complaining!

He’s 71. Is that too old? Is it fair? Did he get special treatment? Youd think the heart was installed by Halliburton!

Well, it appears he did not get special treatment. (Don’t we all want special treatment when someone is going to take our heart out of our body?)

And it seems he waited 20 months. The average wait time, according to a medical consultant for CBS News, is 250 days.

While Dick Cheneys damaged ticker was pumping away with an assist device for those twenty months, there have been some amazing developments in the ethical use of stem cells, adult stem cells.

In 2010, doctors at the Texas Heart Institute were given a $1.5 million grant to perfect a technique to assist heart repair using the same assist device that Cheney had, supplemented with the patients own bone marrow adult stem cells. In Germany, they have been repairing damaged hearts with adult stem cells for over ten years, and recent reports have shown success at using the patients own adult stem cells from various sources including bone marrow and even from the damaged heart itself. Thousands have already been helped with adult stem cells. Its a heart-felt way to care for patients!

We’ve been hoping for another change of heart in Dick Cheney, too. We want him to give up lobbying for counterfeit marriage and embrace the federal Defense of Marriage Act and endorse the Marriage Protection Amendment.

But were glad Dick Cheney got a new heart. And we pray for his speedy recovery.

To our liberal friends we say: take heart: If the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare, we won’t just have to wait until we’re 71 to get a new heart; well all be senior citizens by the time we get an appointment.

Downturn Abbey

by Robert Morrison

March 29, 2012

We missed out on windfall profits for the IPO on Solyndra, so I knew my fair ladys birthday celebration would of necessity be a lower key affair. Still, I wanted to do the best I could by my bride, who has abided with me for some decades now. And this birthday would be a special one for her. A lady never tells her age, but this one was, shall we say, decennial.

Trying to pull off a surprise on She Who Surveys All is no mean feat. So, I enlisted her many friends as co-conspirators. Their response was unanimous: What does she like? Well, she loves the PBS series about those British nobles from a hundred years ago, Downton Abbey.

She doesnt particularly like watching it with her historian husband, however. One time, for example, Lord Grantham and Her Ladyship were having a lovely garden party on a summers afternoon.

I paused the video and piped up: This wont end well. Its August, 1914.

My Lady didnt appreciate my noting that that young guy on the motorcycle with the telegram was going to upend the tea and crumpets. He brought news of the Great War just having been declared.

Well, I explained somewhat pedantically, they didnt actually know it was going to be the Great War, not just yet.

Enough! After that, Her Ladyship kept a firm grip on the remote. No wisecracks about how Snoopy and the Red Baron were more realistic than the battle scenes in this series were permitted.

Wait! Pause it, I yelled. Rewind, please!

If looks could kill, My Lady would have defeated the Huns all by herself. OK, she rewound.

There, I cried, Look at that tea service thatCarsontheButleris serving on.

What about it, she asked, unhappy at having been interrupted at a tender moment in the drama.

That tea service looks exactly like the one your dad gave to your mother sixty years ago, I piped up excitedly. I tactfully left unmentioned the fact that wed carted that same tea service around the country for thirty years and through five Navy moves.

And that gave me an idea:

Her Ladyship would have a real English Breakfast Tea to celebrate her big birthday.

But since the Stimulus was so stimulating, weve had to let the upstairs maid go, (not to mention the downstairs staff.)

Morrison theButlerwould have to suffice for Her Ladyships big day. Thursday morning dawned cool and foggy. Perfect.

Daffodils. The hundred and one blooms showed up on time. Ever since we got married, Id made it a tradition to supply My Lady with a 101 Bloom Salute on her birthday.

Where to serve tea? Her friends all said Puh-leeze, dont serve her in bed. Tea and scones are fine, but crumbs in the sheets are miserable.

So we put Her Ladyship in her mothers favorite Victorian chair in her boudoir. Morrison theButlerserved her English Breakfast Tea from that historic tea pot. Good enough for Earl Grey.

Downton Abby is another of those BBC imports. If they didnt carry on with such stiff collars and bustles and proper British accents, you might think youd stumbled onto the set of some soap opera, like As the World War Turns.

To stay in character, though, one more touch was required: Morrison the Butlerironed Her Ladyships copy of the Washington Post. Thats why we called it Downturn.

The Social Conservative Review: March 29, 2012

by Krystle Gabele

March 29, 2012

Click here to subscribe to The Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends,

This week the Supreme Court spent three days hearing arguments in a legal case. That case, of course, is President Obama’s health care legislation.

The Obama plan is fraught with problems. It requires, under penalty of law, every American to hold health insurance. This is a mandate - a command - unparalleled in U.S. history. As Justice Kennedy noted in his comments, if implemented the Obama health law “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”

The Director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty, constitutional scholar Ken Klukowski, JD, has been in the Court to listen to the arguments. You can read his analyses here. It was Ken who first raised the issue of the mandate’s inherent relationship with every other facet of the Obama health law in litigation he submitted for FRC last year (the issue of severability), and which is now regarded as central to the case by both proponents and opponents of Obamacare (read Ken’s legal brief here).

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote that during yesterday’s hearing, Justice Ginsburg, no friend of conservatives, stated that “taxes are designed to raise revenues, but penalties” - fines for not having insurance, or providing it if you are an employer - “are to compel behavior, and if the penalty works perfectly (i.e., everyone buys health insurance), the penalty will raise no revenue at all” In other words, contrary to the President’s argument, the taxing power included in the U.S. Constitution is not the same as the power to impose a penalty for not participating in a commercial exercise (go to www.cuccinelli.com to listen to an audio of the AG’s remarks).

On Tuesday evening of this week, FRC Action held a webcast titled, “On Trial: Freedom vs. Government Healthcare.” Hosted by FRC Action President Tony Perkins, the forum included Members of Congress, leading medical experts, Ken Klukowski, and AG Cuccinelli, and offered first-hand insight into the Court’s deliberations.

What’s at stake is whether or not Uncle Sam can command us to do its bidding in any area of public or private life - it comes down to that. That stake is sufficiently high to drive all of us low - to our knees, to be specific.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice-President

Family Research Council


Educational Freedom and Reform

Homeschooling

Legislation and Policy Proposals

Government Reform

Regulation

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

Health Care

Abstinence

Conscience Protection

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

Homosexuality

Human Life and Bioethics

Abortion

Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research

To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

Human Trafficking

Women’s Health

Marriage and Family

Adoption

Family Economics

Family Structure

Media

Pornography

Internet

Religion and Public Policy

Religious Liberty

Religion in America

Secularism

International

Israel

International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts

Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews

Known but to God

by Robert Morrison

March 23, 2012

A lot goes through your mind when you stand at attention for nearly an hour at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The Tomb stands at the center of Arlington National Cemetery, hallowed ground for our country. The occasion yesterday was the visit of Admiral Bernard Rogel, Frances top ranking naval officer. The day was clear and cool, with high clouds and brilliant sun. I had the honor of attending the ceremony as Adm. Rogel laid a wreath at the Tomb. I had come with the Naval Academys French exchange officer and a van full of American Midshipmen

The young sergeant of the U.S. Army Third Infantry, tall and very thin, sternly admonishes the crowd to stand and be silent during the changing of the guard. It is in keeping with the dignity of the occasion, he says. Everyone in the shorts and tee shirt group of tourists respectfully obeys. The Tomb is guarded twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year.

Watching the passenger jets pass by, preparing to land at Reagan National Airport, my mind goes back to 9/11. On that day, American Airlines Flight 77 had just taken off from Dulles Airport, twenty-six miles west of Washington, D.C. when it was hijacked. Captain Charles F. Chip Burlingame, a Naval Academy graduate, had no chance to respond to the unanticipated terrorist assault. The flight plowed into the Pentagon, killing all on board, and hundreds in the building.

I immediately wonder what must have been the reaction here, among these Tomb Guards. The Pentagon is just a mile and a half away. They must have known the country was under attack. The fifth general order, which we are all required to memorize in boot camp, states: To quit my post only when properly relieved.

I can guess what the Tomb Guards did on 9/11. Years ago, I was part of an honor guard for an arrival at the San Francisco Coast Guard Air Station. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales landed there because security officials considered it unsafe his jet to land at San Franciscos commercial airport. Radicals at Berkeley were threatening to blow up Prince Charles and his entourage.

When royal jet landed, it taxied away from us, toward San Francisco Bay. This was not something wed been told to expect as we trained for weeks for this arrival. Had a bomb plot been uncovered? Were they whisking the prince to safety?

Would we become not just an honor guard, but human shields? Those five minutes were among the longest of my life. None of us Coast Guardsmen standing at attention moved a muscle. It was a relief to see the princes jet come back to us. It was now flying the Union Jack and the royal standard of the Prince of Wales outside the jets cockpit. Id never seen such a thing before or since. Doubtless it was intended to impress the happy natives. It did.

Yesterdays breeze catches the gold-tasseled flags, American and French, and they snap in the wind. Unobtrusively, I count off the nineteen-gun salute to Admiral Rogel. We had passed those polished, gleaming howitzers on our way to the Tomb. Nineteen guns is the second-highest number accorded a visiting dignitary. Twenty-one guns would be fired off for the President of France, or the U.S.

Again, I thought yesterday of Staff Sergeant Adam Dickmyer. He was one of these Tomb Guards. The brother-in-law of my friend Will Estrada of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Sgt. Dickmyer laid down his life for us in Afghanistan in 2010. He was just 26. It is sobering to know that men so young—many even younger—are daily sacrificing themselves for our freedom. Yet it has always been so. People in the military say America is the land of the free because of the brave. They are not wrong.

At Arlington, there is a time capsule in the cornerstone. It was placed there almost a century ago. It contains U.S. currency and stamps from the 1920s. It also contains a Bible. The simple inscription carved into that gleaming white Tomb of the Unknowns is consistent with what we learn in that book of books:

 

Here Rests in Honored Glory

An American Soldier

Known But to God.

 

Another Obama Administration Attack on Marriage, Religious Liberty

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 23, 2012

Last year, we celebrated when the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling that the Christian charity World Vision was within its legal rights to fire three employees who, after signing the ministrys doctrinal statement, admitted to denying the Deity of Christ.

Now, World Vision and other international Christian ministries are once again being pressured to jettison a key biblical teaching only this time, on marriage. According to Christianity Today, the U.S. Agency for International Development has issued a new federal policy that strongly encourages all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering employees’ sexual orientation.

According to World Vision Senior Vice-President Kent Hill, all World Vision U.S.employees must sign a statement of faith and agree to a standard of conduct that limits sexuality to a God-ordained covenant between a man and a woman.

But World Vision is hardly alone: many other Christian charities that operate abroad could be affected. Many of them belong to the Accord Network (formerly the Alliance of Evangelical Relief and Development Organizations), whose Executive Director, Chad Hayward, warns of a chilling effect on the federal governments willingness to partner with Evangelical ministries as a result of the new encouragement.

Interestingly, the only way I have been able to access the text of this new “encouragement” is by going to the Web site of the Washington Blade, a homosexual newspaper, which has printed a PDF of the USAID letter. A review of the USAID Web site reveals neither publication of this announcement nor any news release relating to it.

The Obama Administration was quick to deny any potential discrimination: According to USAID spokesman Drew Bailey, The LGBT anti-discrimination policy is not binding … Nothing in the policy precludes our continuing strong partnerships with religious organizations or otherwise affects contracting or grant decisions. We have strong, productive relationships with many faith-based organizations, and [they] will not be adversely affected by this policy.”

Let us hope. Yet if thats the case if the religious convictions of Christian relief and anti-poverty groups is, in fact, not only recognized but respected why send a formal government letter with the inference of a veiled threat to ministries that affirm the historic, orthodox Christian belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, for life.

Let us do more than hope: Let us pray that this tacit attack on religious liberty will not impede the ability of Christian groups to partner with Washington in providing aid to those so in need. And let us act, by contacting the Obama Administration and our elected federal representatives to express to them that this potentially massive violation of our first freedom freedom of religion will be stopped.

To contact the White House, click here.

The First RU-486 Abortion Death in Australia

by Chris Gacek

March 22, 2012

Sad news has arrived from Australia of the first woman to die there after using the mifepristone-misoprostol abortion regimen. According to a March 19, 2012 news report the patient died of sepsis associated with group A streptococcus. The woman, a patient of Marie Stopes, died in 2010. It is amazing that it took at least a year-and-a-quarter for the Australian public to learn of the death and then to have virtually no information provided by their version of the FDA or other authorities about the facts of the case. Sepsis has been linked to a number of the RU-486 deaths in the United States.

March 22/23: 1775: Another of Those Spiritual Puns?

by Robert Morrison

March 22, 2012

Historian John Lukacs is one of Americas treasures. He has written extensively on our history and, especially, the history of World War II. As an emigre from Hungary, he brings a unique perspective to his writing. One of John Lukacss many excellent books is The Duel: The Eighty Day Struggle between Churchill and Hitler. The period May 10August 31, 1940, Lukacs writes, determined whether Hitler would win the Second World War.

What are spiritual puns? Thats Lukacss own phrase. He says there really are not coincidences in history. Instead, he calls them spiritual puns. The classic example he provides is this one. Early in the morning of May 10, 1940, Hitlers sleek, silent, black train suddenly changed directions. It had been proceeding noiselessly northward over specially constructed rails. No characteristic clickety-clack disturbed the rest of the sleeping Nazis as the train veered west. Hitler wanted to be on the Northwest frontier as his panzers broke through theArdennesForest and broke through French and Belgian lines. What American journalists had called the phony war would end that fine spring morning as German forces crashed through the democracies defenses in what soon became known as blitzkrieg, or lightning war.

Just a few hundred miles away, that day, Winston Churchill was being driven to Buckingham Palace to kiss hands and receive the seals of office as Prime Minister. There could hardly have been a worse time to come to power. Leaving the palace, Churchill accepted the congratulations of his body guard, Scotland Yard Inspector Walter Thompson. I just hope its not too late, he said somberly.

For us as Americans, how strange it must seem to read John Lukacss book and realize that our fate was being decided on that May day, too. Although no American was on Hitlers private train and no American was in the War Cabinet rooms where Churchill now presided amid clouds of tobacco smoke, we had a rendezvous with destiny. Our looming presence was felt that day. Hitlers train was code-named: Amerika.

Hitler and Churchill had never met. They almost met one day in Munich, Germany, in 1932. Churchill was there researching the biography of his great ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough. But Hitler, not yet in power, decided that Churchill was a washed-up old British politician, so why bother with him? Churchill had angered Hitler by his outspoken writings against the Nazis anti-Semitism. Churchill would live for another twenty years after walking over the bunker where Hitlers committed suicide.

The great eighteenth century English parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, never met Patrick Henry. And there is surely no parallel between these Christian lawmakers and those twentieth century warlords, Churchill and Hitler. But I was struck by what may be another of Lukacss spiritual puns. Burke and Henry shared a common Christian worldview. And we see that in two of their most famous addresses.

For more than a century and a half, American school children would be called upon to memorize parts of Burkes famous Speech on Conciliation. It was delivered March 22, 1775 in London. Also a favorite to be memorized by young Americans would be portions of Patrick Henrys Give Me Liberty speech, given at St. Johns Church, in Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775. There was a vast ocean separating them. The sentiments those two great friends of liberty expressed just hours apart made them almost brothers.

All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies [New England] is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the northern provinces…The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants was the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners, which has been constantly flowing into these colonies, has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the establishments of their several countries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed.

Here, Burke understands that these colonists came here for liberty. They were not about to submit tamely to the British yoke.

If Hitler had picked up a radiotelephone and put through a call to Winston Churchill from his private train car, it is doubtful they would have had anything to communicate in May, 1940.

United by the fear of the Lord and by their love of Liberty, Burke and Henry might have enjoyed an extensive conversation. Parliament ignored Burkes sage advice. The Prime Minister, Lord North, proceeded instead with a plan to subdue the Americans, to try to bayonet us into submission.

Happily, Americans did not ignore Patrick Henrys appeal.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Four years ago, I was privileged to take a class of Witherspoon Fellows to Williamsburg, Virginia, and there hear Richard Schumann, historical interpreter. My daughter, who was with child, and my law student son-in-law joined us. Mr. Schumann delivered Patrick Henrys most famous speech in its entirety. As he spoke, his voice rose in volume and tempo. At the conclusion, my daughter said her unborn child leaped in the womb. Now, thats my idea of a spiritual pun. Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

What Mrs. Obama Said … Implied … Inferred - You Pick - About Same-Sex “Marriage”

by Rob Schwarzwalder

March 20, 2012

Last night, our First Lady said that the upcoming election would have a profound affect on “whether we can … love whomever we choose” as the election will decide who is appointed to the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Obama’s office was quick to issue a “non-denial denial” concerning her intent: Mrs. Obama has never made any public statements about same-sex marriage,” according to the First Lady’s communications director, Kristina Schake. Technically, this is true. Her language was euphemistic, and the actual words “gay” and “marriage” were not spoken.

Yet the intent of what she said was hardly ambiguous. In the words of openly homosexual Richard Socarides, a director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Law Association Foundation of Greater New York, in “this political environment, when you use language like that, you are sending a message. Does the freedom to love whomever we choose not include the freedom to marry? When you have a policy position in the state of perpetual evolution, these are the kinds of problems that are created.

Michelle Obama implied, strongly, that homosexual “marriage” (a) is a moral good and (b) a Supreme Court candidate’s favorable position on it will be a criterion for her husband’s picks for the nation’s highest court. Perhaps that’s why homosexual blogger John Aravosis writes today, “I’ve been saying for a while now that the White House should be using Michelle Obama to woo the gay vote.”

The calculation behind this painfully gradual but still obvious embrace of same-sex “marriage” by the Obamas is clear: Don’t alienate Democrats still uneasy with homosexual “marriage,” tease-along those who support it, and rally the homosexual activists who demand it. This is a sad commentary on the current state of political discourse and simple honesty in public life. Our First Lady is better than that.

Two Hours with Mr. Jefferson

by Robert Morrison

March 16, 2012

Historical interpreter Bill Barker returned to Annapolis last week for what he said was Mr. Jeffersons fifth visit to Marylands capital. The real Thomas Jefferson only came through four times. But in two hours, Barkers Mr. Jefferson character had us almost believing wed enjoyed the stimulating conversation of our former president. The role requires extensive study of the vast volume of writings about Thomas Jefferson and Bill Barker has mastered, it seems, all of it.

Without notes, without any props, or prompting, this Mr. Jefferson invited eight hundred Marylanders in the Key Auditorium of St. Johns College to imagine they lived in the world of 1812. It was a time when most humans traveled by foot—your own God-given two legs—at three miles per hour. The wealthy could afford horsesand they averaged four miles per hour.

Mr. Jefferson held forth on politics, his own eras and by sly inferences, our own. His election as president was not an easy thing in 1800. Under the Constitution as it was originally framed, the Electoral College selected the candidate receiving the highest number of Electoral Votes as president and the man with the second highest number as vice president. Provided, of course, that the presidential winner received a majority of the Electoral Votes cast.

In 1796, the first contested presidential election, the one to succeed the unanimously chosen George Washington, John Adams narrowly edged out Thomas Jefferson. They served, unevenly yoked, for four years.

In 1800, Jeffersons republican party was such a disciplined machine that it produced a tie in the Electoral College. President John Adams was defeated, that much was sure. Who would succeed him? Would it be Thomas Jefferson or his presumed running mate, Aaron Burr of New York. Burr could easily have settled the matter by stepping aside and urging his backers to stay with Jefferson. He didnt.

Our Jefferson character at the Key Auditorium related how the election of 1800 was then thrown into the House of Representatives. There, it required thirty-six ballots before Jefferson emerged victorious. Aaron Burr, for his finagling, earned the lasting distrust of all Jeffersonians.

Bill Barker spoke of this 1800 election and said that some at the time had suggested sending the contest to the Judiciary for decision. His audience roared with laughter as he asked, with a knowing aside: Who could ever come up with such an absurd notion?

I suspected then that our audience was filled with folks still sore at the outcome of Bush v. Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court. And I had to agree with Jefferson that the U.S. House of Representativesthat body closest to the peoplewould be the appropriate place to resolve such a contest. If only we could have gotten the election of 2000 to the House.

The question-and-answer period provided some new insights into the historical Thomas Jefferson. For example, I had not known that Jefferson recommended Benjamin Banneker to the builders of the new District of Columbia for employment. The reason this was significant is that Jefferson was taken to task in a polite but firm way by the inventor Banneker, a free black man, for some of his writings in his Notes on Virginia. In the only book he ever published, Thomas Jefferson advanced ideas of inferiority of black people to whites in some things. If some people today think white men cant jump, many whites then thought black men couldnt compute. Bannekers almanac and numerous inventions proved them wrong. Jefferson, to his credit, accepted Benjamin Bannekers rebuke with grace and even sent copies of the Banneker almanac on to his friends among the French scientific community.

Before we yell racist at Jefferson, we need to recall that some famous French philosophes thought all Americansblack, white, and Indianwere inferior, and even of smaller stature. Jefferson in Paris had refuted that notion by inviting the Americans at his dinner table to standall of the men were over six feet talland then asking their French guests to stand; each of the Frenchmen was considerably shorter.

A predictable question in this navy town was about Jeffersons decision as president to beach most of the fleet. He didnt back down, saying that he opposed standing armies and navies and thought they might even lead to builders of ships and arms combining to influence government. Imagine that: A military-industrial complex warned against one hundred fifty years before President Eisenhowers Farewell Address.

Mr. Jefferson did claim credit for sending the U.S. Navy and Marines against the Barbary Pirates. He was unwilling to pay tribute to these Muslim kidnapers and hostage takers.

But as soon as our Marines had taken the fight to the shores of Tripoli, and won, Jefferson brought them home again. He was not willing to engage in nation-building in Muslim lands. Thats worth considering. Might that prove too costly?

When we lived at the Naval Academy fourteen years ago, Bill Barker was a guest in our home overnight on New Years Eve. I remember teasing himslightly, for he is never really out of charactersaying he had every one of Mr. Jeffersons mannerisms and traits mastered except one.

Somewhat taken aback, Bill Barker asked what that was. You have a sense of humor, I replied. Thats because in fifty years of studying Jefferson, I had never read a joke attributed to the Sage of Monticello. Now, I think I was wrong. Because Mr. Jefferson never wrote anything funny does not mean he did not share witty asides in conversation, or that he did not fully appreciate wit in others. That counts as humor, too.

Bravo, Mr. Jefferson!



  • Jeffersons republicans were to become todays Democratic Party. Todays Republican Party can trace its lineage to Jeffersons opponents, the Federalists. Confusing enough?

The Social Conservative Review: March 15, 2012

by Krystle Gabele

March 15, 2012

Click here to subscribe to The Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends,

Vanderbilt University scholar Dr. Carol Swain, in her recent book Be the People, reminds us that, “People across the globe are still willing to risk their lives to live on American soil. The vast numbers of foreign citizens wishing to enter the United States, whether legally or illegally, tells us we are an exceptional nation.”

As usual, Dr. Swain is right: There is no country like ours, for which we should be deeply grateful - and ever vigilant. Family Research Council exists to strengthen families, protect the unborn and their mothers, sustain religious liberty, and uphold the moral convictions that have infused our nation with hope and prosperity.

One of our top priorities is restoring fatherhood to its central role in our society. Last week, FRC was privileged to host Pastor Freddie Scott, author of The Dad I Wish I Had, as he discussed the crisis in American fatherhood, and what we can do about it. Watch Pastor Scott’s gripping presentation here.

Fathers, mothers, children - all Americans - benefit when integrity is clean, respect is mutual, and virtue is exalted and practiced. “Our forebears balanced a commitment to virtue and justice with a deep awareness of the moral conflict that lies at the heart of humanity,” writes Dr. Swain. “In doing so, they forged a nation unlike any other - with a deep sense of reverence for the human spirit, yet deferential to the God who weighs the affairs of men.”

Will we, in our time, return to that vision? Let’s keep advancing it and not lose heart. America - and the culture we bequeath to our children - is well worth the effort.

Sincerely,

Rob Schwarzwalder

Senior Vice President

Family Research Council

Here’s what they are saying about the Social Conservative Review

Generation Strategies: “A Must Read

Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, Ashland University: The Social Conservative Review has “the pulse of the social conservative movement - always worth a read.”

Educational Freedom and Reform

Homeschooling

Legislation and Policy Proposals

Government Reform

Regulation

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

Health Care

Abstinence

Conscience Protection

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

Homosexuality

Human Life and Bioethics

Abortion

Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research

To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

Human Trafficking

Marriage and Family

Adoption

Family Economics

Family Structure

Media

Pornography

Internet

Religion and Public Policy

Religious Liberty

Religion in America

Secularism

International

Israel

International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts

Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

February 2012 «

» April 2012

Archives