As the Senate continues to hold hearings on President-elect Trump’s cabinet nominees, Senate Democrats reveal their priorities. Among [Thursday’s] hearings were hearings on Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis (USMC, Ret.) for Secretary of Defense (DOD), and Ben Carson for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Mattis’s hearing spanned the issues of military readiness, threats to U.S. security, including discussions about the threat Russia poses to U.S. interests and to NATO given its military presence in the Baltics and role in the Middle East. The former Marine Corps general spoke about — as we have — the importance of the military’s focus being on military readiness. He said, “My concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain it’s at the top of its game.”

During Mattis’s hearing, Democrat Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) asked Gen. Mattis about changing Obama’s policy allowing women to serve in infantry and special forces and the General said he had no plan “to oppose women in any aspect of the military.” When Gillibrand asked about allowing individuals who identify as gay and lesbian into the military — something Congress allowed in 2010 — he said, “Frankly, I never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with.” Mattis focused on troop readiness and the need for the military to return to being a lethal fighting force. When Gillibrand pressed, he said, “Senator, my concern is on the readiness of the force to fight and to make certain it’s at the top of its game.” He also stated what seems lost on liberals: “My belief is that we have to stay focused on the military that is so lethal that on the battlefield, it is the enemy’s longest day and worst day when they run into that force.”

The hearing with Ben Carson involved many crucial discussions about our urban communities and policies that help, rather than stifle, the ability of people to work and flourish. Liberal Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pressed Dr. Carson about enforcing LGBT special privileges in the public housing sector. Dr. Carson could not have provided a better answer. He said he would enforce the laws of the land, something the Obama administration trampled by promoting extralegal regulations. Dr. Carson said, “Of course, I think all Americans should be protected by the law,” and that is precisely the policy we’ve long endorsed. All people have human dignity, deserve respect and should have their rights protected. But as Dr. Carson explained in response to Brown’s question, “What I have said before is I don’t think anyone should get extra rights.”

The Obama administration issued multiple regulations, including under HUD, that create special privileges for people who identify as LGBT. In many cases, these special privileges allow for discrimination against those who disagree with the president and the Left on issues relating to sexuality. The government should not discriminate against Americans because of their moral or religious beliefs about sex, sexuality or marriage being between a man and woman. As Dr. Carson stated, “all Americans” should be protected by the law, and that’s because all people have human dignity. How refreshing and how novel to have nominees that will enforce the law as it is written and ensure all Americans are equally protected by the law, a theme also iterated by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) in his hearing for Attorney General. The American people will be well-served by nominees like Jeff Sessions, Gen. Mattis, and Ben Carson.

Originally published here.

Atheists Stir-Up a Whole Bunch of Controversy Over Bible & Donuts

The Joplin, MO, school district has apparently agreed to the demands of a humanist legal group and suspended a Bible study after complaints that free donuts were “deceptively” being used to bring students to the meetings. The American Humanist Association sent a letter to the school, claiming — based on the report of a parent of one student — that the Bible studies were organized and conducted by faculty and school officials. The school subsequently capitulated.

Yet according to the interim superintendent of the school district, “The [Bible study] was a student-initiated activity that complied with other requirements set out in board policy: Participation was voluntary, it was not led or promoted by a district employee, it didn’t interfere with educational activities and it didn’t use public funds.” The superintendent claimed the policy didn’t comply, however, because “[s]tudent-initiated groups are restricted to the secondary level.”

While the school may have its reasons for claiming its policy was not in compliance, its actions give the impression of ceding more ground to those who want to eliminate any vestige of Christianity from the public square and give the impression that religion in the public square generally is impermissible.

School districts shouldn’t so easily cave to the demands of these anti-Christian activist groups. Would the superintendent have come to this conclusion in the absence of the letter from the American Humanist Association? We don’t know. But schools need to ensure that they’re receiving proper legal advice from an attorney representing them, and not just capitulating to the demands of activist humanist and atheist groups, who are often not offering objective legal advice.

Originally published here.

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