If you’ve ever toured Monticello, then you know that Thomas Jefferson had very strong opinions of what his legacy should be. He wanted to be remembered as the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence and as the “father” of the University of Virginia. Both are inscribed on his tombstone, along with his second proudest achievement — authoring the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom.

That might surprise Americans today, who think the only person who wanted to build a wall more than Donald Trump was Thomas Jefferson. They argue (wrongly) that the Virginian’s goal was to fence off the country’s churches from its state. That may be the goal of liberals now, but it’s a complete misunderstanding of history then. Remember, in Jefferson’s day, the concern wasn’t that religion would overshadow the government but that government would overshadow the faith.

The reality for men and women before the Revolution, Amy Vitale points out, was a far cry from society today. “The United States was born into a world where the church and state were indelibly intertwined. In England, the [monarchy] was — and still is, as any fan of Netflix’s ‘The Crown’ can tell you — both the head of the government and the head of the church.” Historically, she goes on, “anyone willing to stand between God and the king risked paying a high price for doing so. Thomas Becket, for whom Becket Law where I work is named, was murdered by the king’s knights on the steps of Canterbury Cathedral on behalf of a king wearisome that his political operative-turned-priest would dare to serve God before his king.”

Jefferson was fiercely opposed to a government that would dictate what Americans believe – or punish those who refused to conform. Determined to give his new country the freedom England would not, he wrote the measure we still celebrate 232 years later: the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. At the time, it was such a clear and concise defense of liberty that the men who drafted our Constitution relied on it for the framework of the First Amendment.

Now, a full two centuries later, the fears of the framers are suddenly relevant again. Under Barack Obama, Jefferson would have barely recognized his country. Sure, Donald Trump’s predecessor would issue statements on Religious Freedom Day, but the difference is that Obama’s policies didn’t match his proclamations. Instead, he moved to crack down on the expression of faith through health care mandates, bathroom orders, government contracts, marriage lawsuits, and military policy. Now, thanks to a frustrated electorate, Americans have a president with an appreciation for this core value — not just in words, but actions. After two long terms, we finally have a White House determined to make our First Freedom a priority here and abroad.

In the first Religious Freedom Day proclamation of his presidency, President Trump makes a point of distinguishing himself from the past administration. He hearkens back to the dark days of President Obama — a hostile chapter many liberals are all too eager to continue.

“Our Constitution and laws guarantee Americans the right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion. Unfortunately, not all have recognized the importance of religious freedom, whether by threatening tax consequences for particular forms of religious speech, or forcing people to comply with laws that violate their core religious beliefs without sufficient justification. These incursions, little by little, can destroy the fundamental freedom underlying our democracy. Therefore, soon after taking office, I addressed these issues in an Executive Order that helps ensure Americans are able to follow their consciences without undue Government interference and the Department of Justice has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding their compliance with laws that protect religious freedom. No American — whether a nun, nurse, baker, or business owner — should be forced to choose between the tenets of faith or adherence to the law.

"The free exercise of religion is a source of personal and national stability, and its preservation is essential to protecting human dignity.”

Today, we don’t just celebrate the heroes who lit this torch, we applaud the leaders committed to keeping it going. Senators like Steve Daines (R-MT) have fought to keep religious liberty front and center, even under Obama. But for the last 12 months, that courage has started at the top. Maybe that’s why Republicans are more satisfied with America’s direction now than they’ve been in 10 years. For once, we have an administration that understands the fragility of the freedoms entrusted to us and is doing everything in its power to protect them.

Originally published here.

For Planned Parenthood, Abortion Is a Black and White Issue

Plenty of movements have tried to hitch their wagon to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For years, people across the political spectrum have claimed him as one of their own — in part because it’s convenient and in part because he isn’t here to dispute it. But no cause is more antithetical to King’s than Planned Parenthood’s. And Monday, when the group founded by an open racist tried to suggest otherwise, we weren’t the only ones who noticed.

People across the social media spectrum lashed out at Cecile Richards’s group for daring to suggest that they were carrying on King’s vision. The idea that Dr. King would have stood by — let alone embraced — Margaret Sanger’s legacy is outrageous. Yet still, @PPact had the audacity to tweet: “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to the idea that racial and economic justice are foundational to our democracy. Today we honor his courageous vision and radical action — and commit to furthering his dream by continuing the fight for justice.”

If you know anything about Planned Parenthood, you know that it was built on the back of Sanger’s eugenics. Years later, her legacy lives on in the group’s business model, which intentionally preys on minority women. How do we know that? Simple: The majority of Planned Parenthood’s facilities have been built in urban areas within walking distance of African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods. And that’s no coincidence. Richards knows better than anyone that black babies are aborted at a rate five times higher than white babies. So while she likes to say “black lives matter,” she’s not telling the whole story. They matter because it’s a part of her business model.

Despite making up just 13 percent of the U.S. population, the CDC’s 2016 report points out, black babies made up a whopping 35 percent of the total abortions reported in 2013. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, the group that profits most from that statistic, continues its scam as a defender of African Americans.

“Please tell us more about how you’re honoring his courageous vision,” one of many pro-lifers fired back. “Are you going to plant yet abortion clinic in a black neighborhood or something?” Alexandra DeSanctis piled on. “Your group was founded by a eugenics enthusiast who peddled birth control in black and impoverished neighborhoods. Today, more black babies are aborted than born alive in NYC, your headquarters. You have no business coopting MLK to push your propaganda.” Alexandra is right. With just a 40 percent survival rate, the womb is one of the most dangerous places for New York City’s African-Americans. Yet Planned Parenthood will cover up that statistic with the same proficiency that it’s covered up years of abuse, organ trafficking, partial-birth abortions, fraud, and countless other crimes against humanity.

The only connection Richards’s group has to MLK is its butchering of the basic civil rights for which Dr. King died. “It’s not so much about labels — liberal, conservative and all of that,” his niece Alveda has said. “But he was someone who lived and gave his life to help all humanity. And so that definitely would include conception until natural death.” As she told reporters last December, “Martin Luther King Jr. never accepted the agenda of Planned Parenthood. They lie… They put their abortion mills on or near streets that are named after Martin Luther King, and they want to attach that to the civil rights movement of the 20th century — but it doesn’t belong.”

Originally published here.

NASA Nomination Isn’t Rocket Science

President Trump has enough to worry about without Republicans sabotaging his nominees. Fighting to fill hundreds of administration vacancies with a razor-thin Senate majority is no picnic. So imagine the White House’s frustration when a conservative is threatening to sink a nomination that should be a no-brainer.

When the president picked Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) to head up NASA, the Democrats’ opposition was predictable. Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) was not. In three terms, Bridenstine had already made quite a name for himself in conservative circles, racking up a 100 percent lifetime score on FRC Action’s vote scorecard alone. He’s been a standout on core issues from defense to life and religious liberty. The idea that a Rubio would oppose a fellow conservative doesn’t make sense. Or does it?

Reporters think Bridenstine’s endorsement in the 2016 presidential primary might have something to do with Rubio’s hesitation. Could it be, they wonder, that his endorsement of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) over Rubio is fueling the feud? When asked, the Florida senator’s office declined to comment. In November, though, Rubio did say, “I remain very concerned about the politicization of NASA, not even because [Bridenstine] would do it on purpose, but just given some of the resistance he’s already engendered.”

For now, the White House is standing by the nomination, even resubmitting it for consideration after December. “I don’t know for sure,” said John Logsdon, founder of the Space Policy Institute, “but it’s likely this nomination is being managed by the space-dedicated staff within the White House, which works for Vice President Pence on the National Space Council. They’re smart people and certainly can count. So, one would think they would not have recommended re-submission if they thought they were going to lose.”

According to the Senate schedule, the Commerce Committee could take up Bridenstine’s nomination as early as Thursday. But, as at least one Senate staffer pointed out, it will be an interesting vote. “We can only lose one Republican, and we know that Rubio has very serious concerns.” The Oklahoma congressman may not have much of a fan in Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) after Bridenstine backed his challenger. Either way, it’s time to put aside personal pride and do what’s in the best interest of the space program. And we, like President Trump, are convinced Jim would be an excellent choice to lead NASA.

Originally published here.

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council.