HGTV stars Chip and Joanna Gaines were just on the cover of People magazine — and now, they’re the face of something else: a controversy over the fact that their pastor preaches the Bible. For the last few years, the Texas couple has charmed their way into people’s hearts — not just with their talent for renovation, but with their sweet and genuine relationship. Their show “Fixer Upper” has exploded in popularity, and the parents of four have never shied away from their faith — which they’ve talked about at length in their books and interviews.

Today, that faith is under fire by a handful of far-Left extremists who’ve latched onto a sermon the Gaines’ pastor, Jimmy Seibert, preached about marriage and sexuality. “If someone were to say, ‘Marriage is defined in a different way,’ let me just say: They are wrong,” Seibert said. “God defined marriage, not you and I. God defined masculine and feminine, male and female, not you and I.”

Now, I’m not sure why it’s news that a Christian church believes what the Bible teaches about sexuality, but apparently this is a shock to the liberal media establishment. When reporters contacted the church, the communications director pointed them to Antioch’s webpage on “beliefs,” where it says: “Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.” That was their belief when the church was founded 17 years ago — and it’s their belief today. And, as recent polling points out, Chip’s and Joanne’s church is hardly in the minority! Fifty-three percent of all Americans (not necessarily Christian) told Wilson Allen Perkins polling this month that, despite what the Supreme Court ruled, they still define marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Obviously, the Left is trying to do to Chip and Joanna what they unsuccessfully did to the Robertsons of “Duck Dynasty”: take down a hugely successful program in a show of political force. That’s unlikely to happen to a couple like the Gaines, who have no interest in renovating their views to suit a narrow ideology. Hopefully, HGTV has learned since its ousting of the Benham brothers that religious discrimination doesn’t play well with viewers.

Meanwhile, there’s no sugar-coating the intolerance at Kellogg’s! Like a lot of corporate bullies, the cereal company bowled over shoppers with its decision to pull ads from media heavyweight Breitbart, because the outlet is supposedly too conservative for Kellogg’s taste. “We regularly work with our media-buying partners to ensure our ads do not appear on sites that are not aligned with our values as a company,” said Kellogg’s spokesman Kris Charles. “We recently reviewed the list of sites where our ads can be placed and decided to discontinue advertising on Breitbart.com. We are working to remove our ads from that site.” The parent company of brand favorites like Eggo, Pop Tarts, Pringles, Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes and more is joining a few lesser known retailers in boycotting Breitbart — a decision that’s sure to rankle plenty of consumers.

“Kellogg’s decision to blacklist one of the largest conservative media outlets in America is economic censorship of mainstream conservative political discourse,” Breitbart fired back. “That is as un-American as it gets.” If recent history is any indication, it’s also as unwise as it gets. Insulting conservatives after the election hasn’t exactly improved business at GrubHub, Pepsi, Target and Penzey’s Spices (whose CEO went so far as to call all Trump voters “racists” and asked shoppers to protest by donating to a group linked by a federal court to the first case of domestic terrorism in DC: Southern Poverty Law Center). But if it wants to pick a public fight with Breitbart, a site with 19.2 million unique visitors a month, that’s its choice. What I don’t understand is why companies like Kellogg’s can choose where it operates, but Christians like Barronelle Stutzman can’t. I’m fine with a company declining to do business with conservatives. I’m not fine with the double standard created when Christian wedding vendors are prosecuted.

Originally published here.

Wine Subsidy One Project Making Taxpayers Pour

Who says Christmas only comes once a year? According to Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), taxpayers have been giving all year long. And thanks to his second “Federal Fumbles” report, he’s showing Americans just how generous they were forced to be. Like last year’s list, this one shows how badly taxpayers are getting burned — and not just by the $1.3 million tanning bed PSAs (p. 18). In this edition, time flies — and so does the money studying them (p. 9). There’s panda-monium over the $2 million the NSF spent to study China’s lovable bears (p. 14) — but nothing’s putting people on pines and needles like the USDA’s Christmas tree tax (p. 88).

If you’re looking for a distraction from the government’s waste, try taking in a mute Shakespeare play (p. 106). (To speak or not to speak, that is the question.) And most people assumed we already had a federal soap opera (called Congress), but NIH burned $3 million producing a real one (p. 64). There are plenty of raisins to be upset over the USDA’s prune promotion (p. 21), but taxpayers won’t really be wining until they see the $3.5 million in vineyard grants. In Los Angeles, the local courthouse got $1 million to buy a painting, which they later cut into six pieces (p. 35). The mural of that story is that something should be cut all right — but it isn’t that picture!

And $2 million isn’t anything to sneeze at, unless you’re the NIH and you want to know if kids will eat food that’s been coughed on (p. 9). If it’s Medieval smells you’re looking for, nobody nose how to raise a stink like the NEA and NEH! For a half-million dollars, they’ll look the odor way (p. 19). Meanwhile, at the Smithsonian, a controversy is already brewing over the full-time job to survey beer’s impact on American history (p. 105). If this list gives you more indigestion than gas station tofu (p. 7), Sen. Lankford says you can do something about it. It may feel like Congress is cutting spending slower than a gender-specific glacier (p. 47), but let your members know you have a $200,000 Tanzanian bone to pick with how they’re using your money (p. 12)!

“As we enter into a new year — with a new president and new Congress — it is past time to focus on fixing the problems facing our nation… For me, the items listed in this book are a to-do list for the next year. They are examples of violations of the public’s trust that must be prevented from happening again,” Sen. Lankford said. You can hear more about the government’s $1,179 custom Snuggies, $250,000 traveling classrooms on prison life, and other projects on [Tuesday’s] “Washington Watch.” Tune in below!

Originally published here.

The Best Defense (Bill) Is a Good Offense

Other spending bills may sit on the shelf this Christmas, but the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) won’t be one of them. For 53 consecutive years, the military spending bill has defied the odds — getting a half-century’s worth of attention that most budget proposals can only dream about. With a couple weeks until Congress wraps up for the holidays, the NDAA has been on the front-burner of most leaders’ priorities. Key issues like troop pay, health care, women in the draft and equipment upgrades all hinge on the proposal that’s now in its final stages.

Until this week, conservatives were also cautiously optimistic about the chance to tighten religious liberty protections for government contractors. Thanks to Rep. Steve Russell (R-Okla.), the House approved an amendment that would allow the Defense Department to continue partnering with “any religious corporation, religious association, religious educational institution or religious society” for services without the organization having to jettison their religious beliefs. After all, faith-based groups have just as much right to partner with the federal government as anyone. They shouldn’t be disqualified just because they don’t share the president’s extreme sexual ideology.

But, predictably, the Left pitched a fit, claiming that the language would somehow give Christian businesses and organizations the right to “discriminate.” President Obama even threatened to veto the bill funding our troops over the idea of leveling the playing field for religious contractors. Ultimately, the GOP decided the fight was best waged under a new president, so this week it stripped the Russell language out of the final conference bill. Of course, the Left is claiming victory — but what it doesn’t know is that the Trump administration has pledged to issue its own executive order, reinstating government-wide protections for religious liberty.

As disappointed as we are with the House’s decision to peel back the language, we look forward to tackling the issue on a much broader scale under President Trump. Leadership in Congress has already indicated that it’s ready to hold hearings on the government’s decision to elbow religious contractors out of government work unless they surrender their views. Thanks to the Vice President-elect Mike Pence and President-elect Trump, the Left may have won the battle, but it’s about to lose the war.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.