Month Archives: April 2013

The Social Conservative Review: April 25, 2013

by Krystle Gabele

April 25, 2013

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review.

Dear Friends:

As the father of two Boy Scouts, it’s been hard to see the BSA teeter on the edge of moral irrelevance. The proposed “compromise resolution” regarding “open and avowed” homosexuality in Scouting is not the reaching of a middle ground. It is little more than a fall off of a cliff. As FRC President Tony Perkins put it:

The resolution requires all Scouting families and faith-based organizations that object to homosexuality on religious grounds to affirm its moral validity. It introduces open and overt sexuality into an organization that is designed to foster character and leadership, thereby clouding Scouting’s most fundamental purposes. And the proposal says, in essence, that homosexuality is morally acceptable until a boy turns 18 - then, when he comes of age, he’s removed from the Scouts. The policy is incoherent and, sadly, an affront to the notion that Scouts are brave, reverent, and “morally straight.”

It’s in the spirit of the Scout Oath and Law that FRC will be hosting a simulcast titled, “Stand with Scouts Sunday,” at 7:00 PM on May 5th. The program will feature Eagle Scouts and religious and political leaders from across the country. Join us to learn what steps you can take to keep Scouting as its founders envisioned it - as a resource for boys and young men to develop in character, confidence, and leadership, without the intrusion of sexual controversy. Click here to register.

Theodore Roosevelt is the only American in history designated as Chief Scout Citizen. His words about the Scouts hold true today:

The Boy Scout movement is distinctly an asset to our country … It is essential that its leaders be men of strong, wholesome character; of unmistakable devotion to our country, its customs and ideals.

The Rough Rider had it right. Do we still, in our time?

On my honor,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice President
Family Research Council

Educational Freedom and Reform

Legislation and Policy Proposals

College Debt

Government Reform


Health Care

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts


Human Life and Bioethics

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

Family Economics

Family Structure



Religion and Public Policy
Religious Liberty

Religion in America
Check out Dr. Kenyn Cureton’s feature on Watchmen Pastors called “The Lost Episodes,” featuring how religion has had an impact on our Founding Fathers.



International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

The Courts
Constitutional Issues

Other News of Note

Book reviews

Reagan 58% Obama 42%

by Robert Morrison

April 24, 2013

Producers of a forthcoming National Geographic TV special polled Americans, today’s Americans, in one of those fantasy fights that are so popular with boxing fans. This time, though, the pollsters asked Americans whom they would vote for in a matchup between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

The poll produced some stunning results: Reagan would win another landslide, defeating Obama 58% to 42%. Could that be accurate? Would President Obama, with all his famous political skills, really only outpoll the famously inept Walter “Fritz” Mondale by a single point? Recall, Reagan bested Mondale in 1984 by 59% to 41%.

What’s the purpose of such fanciful exercises? It is not a pointless diversion into wishful thinking. It’s a key indicator. It tells us something very important about our fellow citizens.

Americans did respond to clear leadership, to a strong figure who had a strong message. Here’s a little thought experiment: It’s only been one year. Try to recall a single line of Mitt Romney’s that was not a gaffe much exploited by the liberal media. In all seriousness, can we remember a single memorable phrase? I cannot.

I was on the road last year on the FRC/Heritage Foundation Values Voters Bus for nearly six months. By law, I could not endorse any candidates. I found it wiser not to mention any. But that did not prevent anyone from talking up their favorite candidate to me.

I remember stopping at the Minnesota Republican State Convention in St. Cloud. It’s a beautiful state, especially in springtime. We were at the convention center early to set up. Mitt Romney had already wrapped up the GOP nomination by that time. But there were no bumper stickers, no buttons, no posters in evidence for Mitt. I talked to a lot of delegates and backers of various candidates for the U.S. Senate and the House. Not one of these political activists mentioned Gov. Romney.

I remember thinking at the time: this could spell trouble for Romney. I was aware that some parties had elected unloved candidates to the presidency. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, none of these men exuded warmth or elicited the love and esteem of their supporters. But they won nonetheless. What I had never seen in a winning campaign in more than forty years was a winning candidate who was not even mentioned by his own grassroots.

The fact that such a stunning percentage of Americans today say they would vote for Ronald Reagan in a modern election should be a source of greatest encouragement to us. It shows that a strong leader who lays out a clear program could win. Could have won.

In the aftermath of last November, the usual talking heads ran to the cable shows with their white boards and tried to prove that they hadn’t miscalculated. There was just an entirely different electorate out there. Demographics! Even Reagan couldn’t have won in this forbidding environment, they claimed.

Those political consultants—which is our twenty-first century title for flim-flam men, card sharps, and Ponzi schemers—were trying to explain away their disastrous strategizing, their deeply flawed campaign advice. Have you noticed that they are still making the rounds on TV and on talk radio, these architects of failure?

The first fatal flaw in their schemes is red state/blue state. The theory behind red state/blue state says you turn the Electoral College upside down and shoot for 270 Electoral Votes. You identify the states absolutely required to achieve this bare minimum for election. And you squeeze those states like lemons to get every last drop of voting power out of them.

A truly terrible idea, red state/blue state dangerously divides the nation. Barack Obama’s campaign in Virginia in 2008 had 84 local headquarters, staffed largely by volunteers. McCain’s campaign that year in Virginia had one national headquarters and one state campaign office—both located in the same Northern Virginia office building and both equally chaotic. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama became the first Democrat since LBJ in 1964 to carry the Old Dominion. And he did it again in 2012.

Last month, I attended the March for Marriage on the Mall. Four hundred Korean-Americans came to the event. They had all come from one church in Flushing, Queens.

That’s in New York State. The architects of failure haven’t put an ad on TV for a Republican in New York for decades. New York is not a part of the bare minimum number of 270 Electoral Votes they need for their grand strategy. So they write off the Empire State.

These architects abandoned California, too, and New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Washington and Oregon. By micro-targeting their appeals to specific groups—right to lifers, gun owners, home schoolers, NASCAR fans, etc., they lost the ability to move the country.

I still remember lines from Reagan’s 1980 campaign, and not just because I took part in it. “Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours.

And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job.” It was a light jab, not mean at all.

Jimmy Carter was so weak, he could be knocked over with a feather. Best of all, Ronald Reagan said America should be “a shining city on a hill.”

What today’s poll shows us in the fictional contest between Reagan and Obama is that the American people remember that shining city on a hill. Now, all we need is the leader to take us there.

Cherry Blossoming

by Robert Morrison

April 23, 2013

I rarely disagree with my bride of 413 months. Not more than two or three times a week, I’m sure. So it was only under my breath that I questioned her idea of driving into Washington, D.C. recently to see the Cherry Blossoms. The Cherry Blossoms attract visitors from all over the world to our beautiful capital city. Now, there are cherry blossoms on the Yard of the Naval Academy, and we live in Annapolis, so why the push to go to Washington? Well, because Washington’s Cherry Blossoms are so very beautiful, surrounding the Tidal Basin and framing the Jefferson Memorial, as they do.

They were a gift a hundred years ago from the people of Japan. Part of the allure of the Cherry Blossoms, certainly, is their evanescence. They last but a few days. If we have a windstorm, a hailstorm, even a heavy rain, the Cherry Blossoms can be gone in a flash.

Of course, the fact that they are here such a brief moment in time is what draws the tourists from around the country and around the world.

My point, exactly. Any other time, my beloved is hard to draw into Washington. We live only thirty-two miles away, but I say it’s like scraping barnacles off a ship’s hull to get that dear lady into the District.

So which day, of all days in the year, might she choose for a family excursion into the Capital? The peak day of the Cherry Blossoms! It was the very day when much of the rest of the world wants to see them, too!

I rode in the van with my son-in-law and the grandchildren, as we led my wife and daughter in a second car. I muttered “This day of all days!” He has grown used to these expressions of patience and forbearance from me. After all, he’s family now.

As we came up on Capitol Hill, however, my smile through gritted teeth turned into something more genuine.

What’s that big round thing, GranDad” our four year-old grandson asks. “Why, it’s the Capitol of the United States; it’s where Congress meets to make our laws.” For once, I forget about Obamacare and a lot of the other bad things happening under that Dome. I point out the lady standing on top. That’s the Statue of Freedom.”

Oh, GranDad, what’s that big pencil,” he wants to know.

That’s the Washington Monument, I tell him. “Do you work in there,” he asks.

I cannot tell a lie. No, but I’ll take you to the building where I do work.

He and his twin sisters are taking it all in.

Even though we have to drive into Virginia to come around the Lincoln Memorial and get in line to see the Cherry Blossoms, I am by this time in a much better frame of mind.

Maybe the Missus idea wasn’t such a bad one, after all.

And yes, those thirty-six columns on the Big White Box are for all the states we had when President Lincoln lived here. No, he didn’t live in the Big White Box. But I’ll show you the house where he did live.

We slowly make the circuit of the Tidal Basin, in line with approximately 1 in 7 of the seven billion others on Earth.

Parking finally at my office, we dash across the street for a picnic in the Atrium of the National Portrait Gallery. Now, the grandchildren can be unstrapped from their car seats. They were amazingly content to see the Cherry Blossoms and all the monuments. Shouldn’t I be?

They find that stone rectangle on the floor of Atrium, the one with 1/8 inch of water constantly flowing over it. It seems to have been created for no other purpose than for children to splash in it. And they don’t even get other diners wet.

Splish, splash.. Joining them on the rectangle is a boy of about eight. He runs through the water. He wears a yarmulke. This boy has a serious birth defect, but his bearded young dad is teaching him how to take photographs with one finger.

I am thinking how grateful I should be to have witnessed such tender scenes. I was taught the shechechanu, a Hebrew prayer for such moments.

Blessed be Thou, O L_rd, Master of the Universe, that Thou hast preserved us in life to savor this experience for the first time.

And I also thank God for my wife. She has this maddening quality: Even when she’s wrong, she’s right!

Tony Perkins interview on the SPLC

by FRC Media Office

April 23, 2013

FRC President Tony Perkins was interviewed via Skype yesterday on Tom Trento’s show regarding the rise of the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center — a group that has been linked with terrorism in federal court. The audio is a little rough in places, but this is the first part in a series by Trento exposing the SPLC:

FRC In the News: April 22, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

April 22, 2013

Speaking Out on the Scouts

Rob Schwarzwalder, FRC’s Senior Vice President, was quoted in a recent Wall Street Journal article concerning the recent proposed policy for the Boy Scouts. Schwarzwalder brings up an insightful point about the link between scouts and leaders. The article states:

“Rob Schwarzwalder, a spokesman for the Family Research Council, a conservative activist group, said it makes no sense to have a different policy for youth and adults because men who become Scout leaders usually start as Scouts. Will gay Eagle Scouts ‘be denied the opportunity to be Scout Masters?’ he said.”

Egypt Persecutes Christians and Americans Pay the Bills

FRC’s Senior Fellows, Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison, write about how Coptic Christians in Egypt are being persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Their recent article featured on explains that Coptic Christians have been burned at the stake and others have been teargassed, followed by imprisonment. Blackwell and Morrison question if it is good policy for America to be supporting such persecution with their money. They state:

“The Obama administration has never explained how it makes sense for Americans to borrow billions from China to give it to a government in Egypt that is rolling over its own citizens and turning a blind eye to those of its backers who are burning Coptic churches, shooting them down, and setting them on fire. We may not be able to protect the Copts of Egypt, but we surely should not be helping their persecutors. If the Morsi administration begins to crucify the Copts, will we pay for the nails?”

New York Times Defends Its Insubstantial Coverage of Gosnell Trial

Rob Schwarzwalder’s article, which was featured on explains how an editor at The New York Times failed to recognize the horrors of “Dr.” Gosnell and other abortion providers. Schwarzwalder states:

“Mr. Rosenthal’s concern is not for the unborn and born children slaughtered like chubby pigs by Gosnell and his minions, or the women whose lives were lost and health misshapen because of grotesque treatment they received. Rather, Mr. Rosenthal’s major complaint is the unsanitary conditions of Gosnell’s clinic…With audacity so great it stifles the cry of honesty, Mr. Rosenthal goes on to write, ‘Last I checked, there’s no rule that a newspaper, or that paper’s editorial page, has to run one piece about a bad clinic for every piece celebrating a good one.’ Fair point. But I wonder why the Times, as it did with the trial of Tiller murderer George Roeder, did not cover such things as jury selection or pronounce endlessly on the assorted issues involved in the Gosnell case.”

Why the Romeikes’ Fight Is Our Fight

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison write about how the Romeikes’ left Germany years ago, so they could have the opportunity to homeschool their children. They came to the United States for this freedom, and they are now threatened with the prospects of being deported for the very freedom they were seeking in the first place. Blackwell and Morrison state in their article featured in Patriot Post:

Imagine this scene: In October 2006, “German police officers entered the Romeike home without a written court order, forcibly removing the Romeike children, and escorted them to a public school.” German authorities laid heavy fines — upwards of $10,000 — on the Romeikes. They threatened to take the children away. The Romeikes fled to America, this home of freedom…The Romeikes fight is our fight, too! Support them now by contacting We must recognize that home schoolers defend religious freedom for all of us — whether we home school our children or not. If they can be crushed, we all will see parents’ rights and First Amendment rights hollowed out.”

Gosnell Grand Jury Report

by Chris Gacek

April 19, 2013

While reading James Taranto’s excellent pieces (April 15 & April 18) on the Kermit Gosnell murder trial, I noticed a reference to a grand jury report in this case.  If you are interested in the case, the January 2011 grand jury report is easily available for download.  The document is about 280 pages in length.  Sohrab Ahmari’s interview of Dr. Leon Cass on Gosnell should be available here.  Thanks to the Wall Street Journal.

Legal Abortion—”Safety” was never the ultimate goal

by Anna Higgins

April 19, 2013

A couple weeks ago, I published a blog post discussing the reality of back-alley abortions 40 years after the legalization of abortion. The fact that abortion “clinics” are allowed to operate virtually unregulated in most states (either as a result of a lack of regulations or lack of enforcement) puts the health and lives of Americans in danger. In light of their demands that abortion be legalized for safety reasons, it is the ultimate form of hypocrisy that abortion advocates refuse to support regulations that would make facilities safer for women.

The Gosnell trial highlights one such horrific instance of a supposed “medical” facility allowed to operate unencumbered by regulation or inspection from 1993 until 2010 when a Federal drug raid revealed far more than prescription drug misuse. Planned Parenthood and others claim this is an isolated incident and that abortion facilities are safe for women. Absent the ability or will to inspect and maintain records on these facilities, how do they know enough to make any statement on the safety of abortion clinics? The fact is that there have been many instances of abortion facilities being reported for unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Just last week, the Planned Parenthood in Wilmington, Delawarewas forced to close its doors when two of its employees reported the facility for violating health and safety standards. As reported, “Jayne Mitchell-Werbrich and Joyce Vasikonis told WPVI-TV of a ‘meat-market style of assembly-line abortions where the abortionist refused to wear gloves, surgical instruments were reused without being cleaned, and bloody drainage remained on abortion tables between procedures, exposing women to blood-borne diseases.’ ‘It was just unsafe. I can’t tell you how ridiculously unsafe it was,’ said Mitchell-Werbrich.”

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, James Taranto notes that, “Safety is one of the most potent defenses of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that imposed a national policy of abortion on demand.” Yet, abortion clinics remain vastly unregulated and unsafe. In Pennsylvania, Gosnell was allowed to operate his “house of horrors” with impunity thanks to irresponsible and unjustifiable policies put in place by former Governor Tom Ridge. As Taranto noted, the grand jury report in the Gosnell case revealed that “Ridge administration officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased.’” This refusal by government officials to protect their own citizens is inexcusable and should be properly investigated. Imposing health and safety restrictions on any medical procedure hardly poses a “barrier” to medical care.

Taranto goes on to call the argument that Roe v. Wade made abortion safe for women, a “cruel hoax.” It is at the very least a hoax. At the heart of the issue, however, is that the Roe v. Wade “safety” argument served simply an excuse to perpetrate mass killing of “unwanted” or “undesirable” children merely for the sake of selfish convenience. It is time to admit how unsafe abortion really is, to confront the inherent wrongness of Roe, and stop all procedures intended to kill children.

Gosnell, the New York Times, and Moral Squalor

by Rob Schwarzwalder

April 19, 2013

Abortion champion Andrew Rosenthal, who happens to be editorial page editor of what historically has been the nation’s flagship daily, The New York Times, has written a peevish, “how dare you question the Great Oz”-type op-ed defending his paper’s insubstantial coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial.

About his piece is the air of a young child, his hand stuck firmly in the cookie jar, who rather than regretting his error is infuriated at being caught.

Unable to bring himself to describe the crimes “Dr.” Gosnell committed – such things as snipping the necks of crying babies – instead, Rosenthal reduces these little persons to “viable fetuses.” How very medical, distant, pristine, and deadly.

Mr. Rosenthal indicts Gosnell for his “appalling crimes” (what makes them appalling, Mr. Rosenthal? You regard Dr. George Tiller, who did the same things as Gosnell only in unsoiled conditions, as a hero) and links to a piece about them. However, he cannot bring himself to describe these crimes. To do so would demand intellectual integrity and moral courage, since it would involve an acknowledgement of the humanness of the unborn baby – a bridge the stolid advocates of unrestricted access to abortion on demand cannot cross. The insistent recreation of moral reality means holding one’s ground, even if it is crumbling beneath his feet.

In the 1930s, Lady Astor confronted Stalin on his unimaginable enterprise of mass murder, asking him, “When are you going to stop killing people?” He responded, “When it is no longer necessary.” Read Mr. Rosenthal’s article and ask if this same spirit does not seem latent in every line. Abortion is, for him and those on his side, not the loss of a life or the scarring of a woman’s body. It is a post-modern rite, a baptism not of water or the Spirit but of death, an act of defiance and self-exaltation which does not represent purging from sin but the calcification of the soul.

Mr. Rosenthal’s concern is not for the unborn and born children slaughtered like chubby pigs by Gosnell and his minions, or the women whose lives were lost and health misshapen because of grotesque treatment they received. Rather, Mr. Rosenthal’s major complaint is the unsanitary conditions of Gosnell’s clinic.

It is nice to see Mr. Rosenthal’s mellifluous outrage over Gosnell’s inattention to the germ theory. I’m sure the good editor keeps Purell on his desk and sanitary wipes in his car.

With audacity so great it stifles the cry of honesty, Mr. Rosenthal goes on to write, “Last I checked, there’s no rule that a newspaper, or that paper’s editorial page, has to run one piece about a bad clinic for every piece celebrating a good one.”

Fair point. But I wonder why the Times, as it did with the trial of Tiller murderer George Roeder, did not cover such things as jury selection or pronounce endlessly on the assorted issues involved in the Gosnell case.

Finally, here is Rosenthal’s peroration:

Dr. Tiller was performing safe and legal abortions when he was gunned down in the foyer of his own church. The reopening of his clinic, which will not perform late-term abortions, is an act of courage on the part of Julie Burkhart, a former colleague of Dr. Tiller, and others. She is already receiving death threats from people who believe that murder is an acceptable way of protesting legal, constitutionally protected abortions. Through this sort of intimidation and through legitimate political action, anti-abortion forces have been alarmingly successful in restricting women’s access to reproductive health services, including birth control, cancer screening and other services. That is the real issue.

Making “this sort of intimidation” (which is roundly condemned by the pro-life movement and always has been) equivalent to “legitimate political action” is so inflatedly unctuous the reader is reminded of a passage in Wodehouse in which Jeeves is chided for burning Bertie Wooster’s toast. It’s sort of like saying, “cyanide and aspirin are both drugs,” technically accurate but essentially, and gravely, misleading.

The real issue” is access to birth control, not the murder of children? As others have written, no one asks, “Is your fetus a boy or a girl? Have you given the fetus a name? Is the collection of blood and tissue and DNA growing in your womb your first?”

The term is baby. The issue is murder. The culprit is Kermit Gosnell, and not because he didn’t use clean forceps.

Calling an unborn child a “fetus” makes him or her no less human. Indignation over cleanliness (is it truly next to Godliness, Mr. Rosenthal?) and predation as one’s fundamental response to moral horror is like the man who was offended he couldn’t wear a hat to his hanging. It rather misses the point.

I am as troubled by Mr. Rosenthal’s stentorian resistance to calling murder “murder” as I am by the absolutist position he takes on abortion itself. When a public opinion-leader can stare at transparent evil and pronounce it benign, does “civilization” itself have any continued meaning?

But if not…

by Robert Morrison

April 19, 2013

Columnist George F. Will once wrote about the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France in 1940. The rapid advance of Hitler’s Panzer divisions, supported by the terrifying new air weapon of his air force, the Luftwaffe, was crushing French and British opposition. The Germans had broken through on May 10th, the same day that in London Winston Churchill had become Prime Minister. Churchill knew he would have to evacuate his surrounded troops from the embattled city of Dunkirk, one of the French Channel ports. He also knew that he would have to order some of his soldiers in Calais, another Channel port, to fight to the death to cover the BEF retreat.

We now know, of course, that Churchill and his War Cabinet had hoped to get as many as 100,000 troops rescued from the beaches and brought home. So desperate was their situation that they thought that might be the largest number they could hope for. Those 100,000 soldiers would have to abandon all their tanks, trucks, and artillery in France. Even their rifles. At home in England, elderly men of the all-volunteer Home Guard were drilling on village squares with only broomsticks in place of rifles on their shoulders.

George Will wrote of these desperate days in a column some years ago. He wrote not of the 336,000 troops of the BEF and their Free French and Polish allies who were eventually brought off from Dunkirk. This was hailed by Churchill as “a miracle of deliverance.”

Columnist Will wrote instead of some of those who guarded the rear of the BEF, those brave warriors French and British who made it possible for the great host—that third of a million—to be rescued. One of the commanders of that doomed division sent a short message back to Whitehall, in London. The War Cabinet read this three-word transmission.


In those biblically literate days, as they faced the prospect of invasion and enslavement, the British at home were stirred as they had never been stirred in the two thousand-year history of their island home. They instantly recognized those three words. They were spoken by the three young Israelites in the Book of Daniel. The full quote follows the description of the fiery furnace into which King Nebuchadnezzar would throw the young men if they refused to bow down to his Golden Image:

But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods nor the golden image that thou hast set up.” [Daniel 3:18]

The three-word message was all that these brave men could send to their commanders. Many of those defenders of the Dunkirk evacuation prayed, no doubt, that God would deliver them. But if not, they were saying, they would not bow down to Hitler’s New Order in Europe. Thousands of those who were not killed were captured and would spend the war in Nazi captivity, where not a few of them died.

Dr. James Dobson encourages us to read Five Days in London, by John Lukacs. That book tells the story of Britain in her hour of maximum danger. I read that short volume every spring. And Dr. Dobson likes to remind us of the National Day of Prayer that was specially called for by the British government as their trapped men gathered on those beaches.

Winston Churchill, it is true, was impatient, oppressed by many “hard and heavy tidings” from France. He really didn’t want to break away to attend the Prayer Vigil at Westminster Abbey. But he was not yet secure in his own political position. He had clashed with his Foreign Minister, Lord Halifax. Halifax was a famous Anglican churchman. Halifax pressed Churchill for two things—a positive answer to “peace feelers” from Italy’s Fascist dictator, Mussolini, and a National Day of Prayer.

Churchill had to give Halifax—whom he called that Holy Fox—something. Oh, alright then, a National Day of Prayer. But the Prime Minister sent ahead word that he would only attend for 10-30 minutes. A vicar welcomed him and said he would so like to tell the faithful that their Prime Minister was a pillar of the Anglican Church, like Lord Halifax. Churchill puckishly replied: “You may say I am a flying buttress. I support the church, but from outside.”

Although Churchill had little faith in the efficacy of prayer, he may have had a mustard seed. The English Channel, that 23-mile anti-tank ditch, was usually stormy, even in May. During the Dunkirk evacuation, the Channel was, as many of the escaping soldiers testified “as calm as a millpond.” German U-boats were kept at bay. And Stukas dive bombing the soldiers hunkered down on the beach found many of their bombs’ explosions were muffled by the sand and surf.

Today, we are not being asked to stand up to Hitler. And I do not charge our adversaries with being Nazis. I do not hate them. But this much should be clear: The end of marriage equals the end of liberty. They cannot bring about this unnatural change without crushing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion. The end of liberty equals the end of America. The stakes are that high.

We are indeed being asked to bow down to a golden image. It is President Obama’s fundamental transformation of the American Republic. And the avatar of that transformation is “Julia,” the White House’s fictional everywoman. Her entire life is lived in dependence upon the government. The only man in Julia’s life is Barack Obama.

George Will has long since given up. He says the opponents of unmarriage are literally dying off. That word did not reach the young French who attended our March for Marriage. Or the 400 young Korean-Americans who rode through the night by bus from Flushing, Queens to stand for marriage. Nor has it reached the young people of

I am younger, though not by much, than George Will. I named the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 because I wanted people to learn that marriage itself was under attack. I will not give in. I expect we will win, Mr. Will. But if not…

FRC In the News: April 18, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

April 18, 2013

Scouts Must Defend Long Held Convictions

FRC’s President Tony Perkins wrote an article featured in The Kansas City Star that explains why the Boy Scouts must stand strong on their convictions and not cave in to pressure. Perkins states:

“Parents should be able to entrust their sons to the organization with the confidence that their desires will be honored, and that their sons will not be exposed to inappropriate sexual topics. The BSA should retain the current long-held and time-tested policy regarding gays. Changing the current policy would likely result in drastic reductions in Scouting nationwide. A similar policy, forced on Scouts in Canada, resulted in a 50 percent drop in membership. But that would not be the only consequence.”

Slate: ‘Marriage Equality’ Includes Polygamy

Ken Klukowski, FRC’s Director, Center for Religious Liberty, addresses the issue of polygamy in his article featured on Klukowski specifically addresses statements published by Slate. Klukowski states:

“I give them credit for their honesty; they admit and even embrace that if you demand a right to same-sex marriage, there’s no principled reason not to have a right to polygamous marriage. The only reason is political. The American people have been told for years now that gay marriage would not open Pandora’s Box, but they still understand at a gut level that they do not want to entirely redefine the family unit in the United States.”

Snubbing Thatcher’s Funeral?

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison discuss why President Obama did not attend the funeral for Lady Margret Thatcher in their recent article featured in American Thinker. Blackwell and Morrison state:

“We dissent, respectfully, from our Conservative British brethren.  We are glad that President Obama is not going and not sending a senior member of his administration.  His administration is working night and day to undo the great work of President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher.  It is far more appropriate to send to our great ally’s obsequies a delegation composed of those Americans who were actually Britain’s allies when Mrs. Thatcher governed at Number 10 Downing Street.”



March 2013 «

» May 2013