It’s tough to find two states with less in common than Iowa and New Hampshire — and in [Tuesday] night’s presidential primary, voters showed why. The candidates didn’t just swap farms for forests, they moved from values-motivated conservatives to fiercely independent moderates. But that didn’t mean the results were any easier to predict (just ask Hillary Clinton).

Apart from Donald Trump, who’s enjoyed a cushy lead for weeks, the GOP’s top five finishers gave pundits plenty to chew on heading into South Carolina on February 20. For Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.), Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), it was a disappointing — and for Bush, costly — night. George W.‘s younger brother gambled big money on the Granite State, sinking a whopping $36.1 million into ads (double the next largest spender) for a mediocre fourth place finish. At $1,200 per vote, Bush’s two delegates cost a whole lot more than Senator Ted Cruz’s (R-Texas), who underspent everyone at $18 a vote and still came in third. Governor Christie splurged with $852 per vote, only to finish sixth and announce the suspension of his campaign. Senator Rubio was a little more frugal at $508 a vote, but even that couldn’t erase people’s memories of last Saturday’s debate, which many — including the senator — blamed for his fifth-place effort.

For Trump, who lapped the competition with 35 percent of the vote (more than double Governor John Kasich’s 15 percent), it was a gratifying night. He won soundly, in every age group, every gender, income group and issue group. Of course, what most people don’t know is that almost half of New Hampshire GOP primary voters aren’t Republican (which may help explain Governor Kasich’s runner-up finish). In a state where voters can cast ballots in any party’s primary, only 55 percent of the Republican primary voters in the Granite State told pollsters they were actually Republican, while 42 percent identified as Independent (and three percent said they were Democrats). Of those Republicans, only 27 percent said they were “very conservative” — a 13-point drop from last week’s contest in Iowa.

That’s not surprising to pollsters at Gallup, who ranked it the second least religious state in America. With church attendance in the basement, it stands to reason that only 25 percent of voters Tuesday were evangelicals. But here’s what is surprising analysts: Despite 40 percent fewer evangelicals in Iowa, a nominal investment and zero visits between November 12 and January 12, Ted Cruz still came in third. He spent less time, money ($1,182 less per vote than Jeb!) and energy in New Hampshire, and yet his principled stance still carried him past other candidates and won him the second largest share of Millennials. And his message didn’t just resonate with voters. Even the Huffington Post declared, “If Marco Rubio won the Iowa caucus by finishing third last week, Ted Cruz just won New Hampshire.”

Americans are hungry for an uncompromising, bold, politically incorrect candidate who will swim against the tide to get things done. That fighter mentality is what people like about Trump and respect about Cruz. The media may not understand it (“Ted Cruz Will Get Crushed in New Hampshire,” The Daily Beast prophesied), but with more results like New Hampshire’s, it will be the liberal press’s credibility that’s crushed.

Tony Perkins has provided this endorsement in his individual and personal capacity only, and it should not be construed or interpreted in any way as the endorsement of FRC, FRC Action, or any affiliated entity.

Originally published here.

GOP Can’t Dodge Draft Issue

After a great showing in Iowa, it’s hard to say what hurt Marco Rubio in New Hampshire. The senator had his own opinion, blaming the results on last weekend’s debate, telling crowds, “[T]hat disappointment is on me, not you. I did not do well on Saturday night.” And while there were a few moments that people may highlight, his response on the military draft was certainly one.

In what was probably the most surprising response of Rubio’s, Bush’s and Christie’s candidacy, the Republicans broke with conservatives — and most Americans — saying they agreed with the Left’s push to draft women into military combat. Leaving parents’ mouths gaping, each father said he favored registering women for selective service now that the president is throwing open the doors to female infantry and special operations. Marine Commandant General Robert Neller has been blunt about the obstacles, after political appointees ignored his advice — and research — about the negative consequences. “I have concerns about retention. I have concerns about injury rates. I have concerns about propensity to re-enlist, career progression. I have concerns about what’s gonna happen if the numbers are low,” he said soberly at last week’s Senate Armed Forces Committee meeting.

And that’s just for women who choose more dangerous roles. Forcing women into them is another matter entirely — one that Christians, parents, conservatives and women fiercely oppose. In a new poll released [yesterday], Rasmussen found that only 38 percent of the females affected by this policy support it! Fifty-two percent disapprove. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) was shocked by the three candidates’ support for the radical idea, telling reporters, “I do not want to see my 15-year-old daughter drafted into the military, and every mother and father I’ve talked to in Utah feels the same.” Governors Bush and Christie have also gotten serious pushback for their suggestion, especially Christie, who framed the issue as one of discrimination.

Female Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Jessie Jane Duff certainly doesn’t see it that way. The 20-year veteran posted a powerful rebuke of forcing women into things like hand-to-hand combat and what she calls “the most violent fighting in the world.” Angry that the GOP would fall into the president’s politically correct trap, she wrote on Allen West’s site:

“The three Republican candidates apparently bought into the Left’s argument that this is an equal opportunity issue. No, this is a combat readiness issue. Period. Women in combat isn’t a feel-good argument about ‘if she wants to do it’ or ‘it’s her choice.’ We’re talking about the difference between living or dying, and living means crushing an enemy whose only way to survive is by killing his opponent… Women in combat will cause women to die at a much higher rate than men in the next conflict. When the military experiences any change, it should be to make units more lethal. There is zero evidence women in the infantry, special forces, or combat arms can do this… The military isn’t being honest with women. All data shows that women are injured at twice the rate of men. Yes — TWICE the rate. In Army basic combat training, women were injured 114 percent higher rate than men. These statistics are just in present combat support roles, not the combat/infantry units… Few women serve in the infantry in any other nation and the reality is, those countries are experiencing difficulties making it work. Israel doesn’t have women on the front lines… This isn’t about equality — it’s about defeating an enemy.” (Read her whole piece here.)

Since the debate, Senator Rubio is the only one who’s tried to clarify his position, saying that he supported the drafting of women but would oppose ordering them to ground units where the fiercest combat is underway. Unfortunately, as our own Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) points out, there’s no way to guarantee that our daughters wouldn’t be sent to the infantry in a draft scenario. The only thing that would stop it is not drafting them in the first place. Which is something every American should agree on.

For more on the debate — and the difference between American servicewomen and Israeli servicewomen — check out my conversation with the General on “Washington Watch” radio [from Wednesday]. Also, if you haven’t signed FRC’s petition telling the presidential candidates, “Don’t Draft Our Daughters,” do so here!

Originally published here.

Bathroom Bill Runs Hot and Cold in N.C.

If there’s one thing liberals are, it’s persistent! Months after FRC helped rally pastors to defeat Charlotte’s bathroom bill, the Left apparently didn’t get the message. In January, the city council was back at it, recycling the same ordinance in hopes that stifling religious liberty and opening up women’s restrooms to grown men would be more popular this time around.

After 40,000 emails, phone calls and several alerts, members voted 6-5 last March to kill the bill — handing the Left another crushing defeat in its bid to silence and punish conservatives for their views. Our good friends and Charlotte residents, David and Jason Benham, helped lead the defense, along with Rev. Franklin Graham, the North Carolina Family Policy Council, FRC’s Watchmen pastors, and the FRC Action team. All of those networks will have to be on their toes to stop the proposal this time around. If voters don’t speak up as forcefully, Charlotte will be the first city in the state to give people who identify as transgenders special protected status in law.

Liberals insist it’s a matter of life and death for the LGBT community. The reality is, these efforts are a matter of livelihood and the death of freedom for Christians across America. Bakers, fire chiefs, policemen, lobbyists, teachers, wedding planners — they’re all being forced by the government to check their beliefs at the workplace door under measures exactly like this one. Fortunately, the American people are starting to catch on to the Left’s march and demanding leaders discard these SOGI ordinances. If you live in the area, speak up!

Also, for more on the dangers of sexual orientation/gender identity measures, make sure you’ve read FRC’s new paper, “Can There Be ‘Compromise’ between Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity Non-Discrimination Laws and Religious Liberty Protections?”

Originally published [here](https://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=WA16B17&f=WU16B050.