The glass ceiling isn’t the only thing Hillary Clinton shattered this week. She may have also fractured her own party. After adopting the most radical platform in DNC history, some Democrats worry that the party is about to learn a hard lesson about its extreme social stance. The incredible shrinking tent is having a major effect on the base, which warns that the country is nowhere near Clinton’s fanatical approach to abortion.

Justin Giboney, a Clinton delegate from Atlanta, didn’t hide his frustration on the document, which he described as “reaching a point of irresponsibility.” “It’s one thing to say sometimes [abortion] is necessary,” he told reporters. “It’s another thing to say it’s a social good.” Others, like young medical student Christina Healy, feel like pro-life Democrats have been betrayed. “It feels like we are being pushed out of the party, but not for a good reason.”

That’s exactly the alarm Kristen Day sounded in her op-ed about the perils of drawing such a hard line on abortion. Pew Research backed up Day’s warning with numbers that spell trouble for the DNC. According to its latest surveys, 28 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. In an election as tight as this one, that’s a big slice of the DNC pie. And if the DNC thought its leaders would fall in line with this radical policy departure, it’s mistaken. Already, Democratic senators are distancing themselves from the platform, which includes — for the first time ever — a call to repeal the Hyde amendment and force taxpayers to bankroll abortion-on-demand.

Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was one of the first out of the gate, calling the idea “crazy.” “It’s something that I know most of the Democrats in West Virginia and most West Virginians would not agree with. I don’t either,” he told The Weekly Standard. His fellow Democrats, Senators Bob Casey (Pa.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), both self-proclaimed pro-lifers, reminded their party that the amendment was “a consensus-based policy.” And Donnelly spokeswoman Sarah Rothschild insisted her boss wasn’t about to change his mind on the issue. He “has long supported and continues to support the Hyde amendment.” Even the liberal wing of the party couldn’t believe their eyes.

Some of the staunchest supporters of abortion — including President Obama and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D) — at least give lip service to the wall between the barbaric practice and taxpayers. The divide between Hillary and the current White House was even more evident when Obama’s former director of faith outreach, Michael Wear, called the platform “morally reprehensible.” Yet Hillary, in one of her biggest rallying cries of the night, insisted, “We wrote it together — now let’s go out there and make it happen together!” In this case, “it” isn’t just toppling Hyde, but sending more money to Planned Parenthood, labeling the killing of unborn children “a fundamental human right,” fighting against laws that provide for safer and cleaner clinics for women, even taking away voters’ rights to set the standard in their own states! And it could get worse. Their new nominee has also said that “religious beliefs” on abortion “have to be changed.” How, she’s never specified — but the lack of religious liberty in the platform probably has something to do with it.

With their own party in disarray, Chelsea Clinton tried to distract people from the mess by attacking the GOP platform. Chelsea, who must have inherited her parents’ allergy to the truth, insisted that the Republicans endorsed “child abuse” by supporting gay conversion therapy. As usual, a member of the Clinton family was twisting the facts. The reality is, the GOP platform doesn’t even mention conversion therapy! This is what it does say:

We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children. We support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their minor children and urge enactment of legislation that would require parental consent for their daughter to be transported across state lines for abortion.

Meanwhile, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who some conservatives say is an alternative, isn’t helping make the case why undecided conservatives should support him. In a revealing interview with the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, the former New Mexico governor isn’t likely to win over many disgruntled conservatives with his far-Left views on abortion and religious liberty. Sounding more like Clinton than Rand Paul, the third-party candidate rants about the ridiculousness of protecting our First Amendment, suggesting that religious liberty is just a license to “discriminate.” “Under the guise of religious freedom, anybody can do anything… [L]iterally, we’re gonna open up a can of worms… discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of…”

So, Carney followed up, you think it’s the federal government’s job to step in in stop “discrimination?” “Yes,” Johnson replied. When Carney remarked that his position wasn’t very libertarian, Johnson said, “I just see religious freedom, as a category, of just being a black hole.” Speaking of holes, he dug himself a bigger one when he was asked about abortion. “The law of the land is Casey v. Planned Parenthood,” he insisted. “I have no intention of changing the law. I’m not a social conservative.” No kidding.

Maybe you, like many evangelicals, are struggling to come to grips with the options of this election. A new piece by longtime theologian, author, and professor Wayne Grudem may help. Take time to read his thoughtful and in-depth analysis in Townhall that outlines the moral reasons why he’s choosing to vote for a certain candidate in November.

Originally published here.

The Navy and LGBTs: Joined at the Ship

While the rest of the world was focused on the terrorist attacks in France, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus was busy putting another politically correct stamp on the military. On July 14, outlets are now reporting, the political appointee (and one of the staunchest activists for special LGBT privileges) inked his name to a notice that he planned on naming a new ship in honor of the late gay icon and San Francisco politician Harvey Milk. The news should be astounding to anyone familiar with Milk and his less-than-honorable life story. Although he served briefly in the Navy, nothing he did merits the kind of tribute Mabus is giving him.

As FRC’s Peter Sprigg said when Milk was awarded a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom, “Milk is famous only for winning one election, being murdered — and having sex with men.” Now the Navy seems intent on following in the administration’s ridiculous footsteps and bestowing a great honor on someone primarily on the basis of his sex life. While the LGBT community has long idolized Milk for his decision to live openly, his Navy career is hardly the stuff of legend. In fact, one of the defining biographies on the man (written by a self-described “gay journalist”) insists that Harvey “continued to engage in homosexual conduct while serving in the U.S. Navy” against the law. According to Peter, author Randy Shilts reports that Milk, who had his own apartment off base, would pick up hitchhiking sailors by offering them a bed to sleep in. What he didn’t tell them is that it was his bed. “The guests often would not know that Milk’s apartment had only one bed until they walked in the door.”

“Milk later exploited his time in the Navy during his political career,” Peter explains, “by lying about it, claiming falsely that he had received a dishonorable discharge for his homosexuality. Milk ‘knew the story would make good copy,’ according to Shilts. ‘Maybe people will read it, feel sorry for me and then vote for me,’ Milk told one campaign manager.”

A life marred by promotion of illegal drug use, sexual exploits, and lies doesn’t deserve one of the greatest military distinctions — especially not with so many genuine heroes to choose from. “Since Harvey Milk died from an assassin’s bullet,” Peter pointed out, “over a quarter million American men have died of AIDS, which they contracted because they had sex with other men. [It’s madness] that someone whose only claim to fame is that they promoted such deadly behavior should be honored…”

If you’re as disturbed by Mabus’s plans as we are, bring this up to your House and Senate leaders while they’re home campaigning and hosting townhalls. Let them know that the Navy’s idea is an outrageous one when there are so many other deserving men and women, whose courage mattered — not in the bedroom, but on the battlefield.

Originally published here.

Generation Conservative

On Friday, Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow of Legal Studies at the Family Research Council, spoke to a crowd of over 200 college students about marriage and abortion at Young America’s Foundation’s National Conservative Student Conference. While the media often depicts millennials as a crowd filled with only liberals, these students proved that such a perception comes out of a false premise. By simply hearing these students’ questions and responses after Ruse’s speech, it was evident that many of these students are conservatives who are standing up and fighting for the truth.

In the first segment of her speech, Ruse began by recognizing that fathers and mothers are each different in what they bring to a marriage union and each have a profound impact on raising children. The voice of the people on this issue became clear as Ruse ran off a list of over 20 states that had defined marriage between one man and one woman between 2000 and 2012. As a mother, Ruse has seen firsthand the needs she meets as a mother. Despite the apparent distinctive roles, Ruse highlights a major dilemma: due to five Supreme Court justices, the government now redefines those roles, making the mother-figure or father-figure easily disposable.

Cathy took special care to highlight that the conservative’s enemy is in no way the 1.6 percent of our neighbors who self-identify as gay. As conservatives, our enemy lies in the master that no longer listens to the voice of the people. The shocking agenda of the Left is pointed out by Ruse: “The same-sex marriage project demands official approval from everyone. And even more than that: participation.” To “opt out” is to be bigoted and on the wrong side of history. “Government cannot force us to "bend the need;” therefore, “if we can’t secure this freedom in law, we must live it in peaceful civil disobedience of the law,” she added.

Throughout the remaining portion of her speech, she tackled the left’s talking points on abortion by mentioning the dissonance between the perceptions of abortion and the realities of it. For instance, a common defense for aborting a child surrounds the importance of protecting the health of the mother. And yet, as Cathy mentioned, according to Guttmacher, “93 percent of abortions are done on healthy women and healthy babies.”

Cathy continued to clarify the falsehoods revered by the left after a student posed a question on how we should respond to people who are concerned about the safety of abortion if it were to become outlawed. In such, Cathy explained that it is already unsafe, even though it is currently legal. This is yet again another liberal argument ignoring a bigger picture. “Abortion is a free pass for society to abandon the woman in need… it is an injustice to women,” Cathy stated.

Cathy delivered a compassionate, yet strong message to these young conservatives. While marriage and abortion are often difficult discussions to take part in, she encouraged students to begin discussing the significance of motherhood and fatherhood as well as the incredible necessity to combat the arguments that abortion is on the side of women.

Originally published here.