In Disappointment, Buoyed by Hope
It’s how we respond — as believers and as deeply patriotic Americans — that will ultimately decide this nation’s fate.
When things started looking bleak on the morning of November 4th, conservatives held tightly to one comfort: At least we have the Senate. Two long and punishing months later, even that consolation is slipping away. Barring a last-minute surge for Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.), Republicans — despite truly incredible gains in the House — are on the verge of two tough years in the minority. It isn’t the script any of us would have written for the country we love. But as those of us who’ve lived through the long arc of this movement know: it isn’t the closing chapter either.
Disappointment has been a familiar friend to a lot of Americans these last several weeks. More than anything, we just want something to go our way — a court case, a congressional challenge, a win. And maybe something will, in Georgia’s runoff or with the Republicans’ protest to the election results. But if it doesn’t, this isn’t the end. Not by a long shot. Are there harsh realities in store for our country? No question about it. But it’s how we respond — as believers and as deeply patriotic Americans — that will ultimately decide this nation’s fate. Not a new president, new House, or new Senate.
Success, Winston Churchill reminded people, is not final. Failure is not fatal. It stings — but it should also motivate. Conservatives, remember, have been here before. The most recent time, in 2009, the political hole was much deeper. More than a decade ago, when President Barack Obama was sworn in, Democrats controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures. Eight years later, that number was cut in half to 13. And Obama may have ushered in a 60-seat majority in the Senate and a 257-seat majority in the House, but two years later, he lost 63 of those House seats to Republicans — and by his second term, both chambers were taken over by the GOP. Nothing, not even the most extreme administration in history, is forever.
Democrats can — and will certainly try — to pull America to the extreme Left with whatever majority they have. But this isn’t 2009. There are no blank checks for Joe Biden to fundamentally transform America. As Politico pointed out, even if Jon Ossoff (D) wins out, “The party’s control in both the House and Senate would be so tenuous that just a handful of House Democrats and even a single Senate Democrat could tank a bill.” Biden’s agenda, they warn, “won’t be without roadblocks.”
One of those roadblocks will be the Democratic Party itself. An internal struggle is brewing — the fierce push and pull between moderates and the far-Left wing. Already Wednesday morning, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) were out with their list of demands, an outrageous grab bag of extremism from free college tuition, “repro[ductive] justice,” and climate action to D.C. statehood, socialized medicine, and outlawing the death penalty. Their socialist support will salivate at the ideas, but cooler heads, if there are any, will remind them that what happened Tuesday doesn’t negate what happened November 3rd when Americans rejected the House’s radical leftward lurch. With just 11 seats to her advantage (or possibly 10 when NY-22 is finally called), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will be leading from the weakest Democratic majority since World War II.
Senator-elect Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) is also operating on borrowed time. His seat, thanks to the nature of Kelly Loeffler’s (R-Ga.) 2019 appointment, puts him back on the ballot in 2022. Georgians may have elected him, but will they re-elect him after two years of explosive anti-Semitic, anti-life, socialist fandom? At the end of the day, this is a unique opportunity for both parties. And the last thing any of us can afford to do is throw up our hands and walk away from it.
Regardless of what happens in Georgia, these won’t be an easy 24 months. But if 2016 taught us anything, it’s how much we can harness our strength if we exercise it. Together, we have the power to raise up leaders who love and believe in this country and its foundations. We know, because we’ve done it. We can affect change at every level. We know, because we’ve seen it.
There are people in this nation who will emerge from the turmoil of these last several weeks wracked with fear and anxiety. Praise God that we don’t have to live that way. As Christians, we have the gift of an eternal perspective that teaches us there’s a tomorrow. And no election, no power of man can take that from us. “He changes times and seasons,” Daniel 2:21 tells us. “He removes kings and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding.” Let’s all be buoyed by the hope we have in Jesus to overcome this world if we do as the Apostle Paul says — and keep standing.
Originally published here.
GOP Judges Make a Loss Feel like a Future Win
Americans may be saying goodbye to President Trump later this month, but his presence will still be larger-than-life in another branch of government: the courts. Almost every day, there’s another headline reminding both sides what an amazing judicial legacy the 45th president is leaving behind. And with Congress very nearly in Democratic hands, that’s no small prize.
The Senate was supposed to be the backstop to the liberals’ radical plans. With that in doubt, conservatives are thanking God for the last resort they still have: the guardians of justice — the courts. That hasn’t always been the case, but thanks to the president and Senate Republicans, there are more originalists on the court than ever before. And if a return to the Constitution is what it takes to counter the liberal onslaught that’s coming, then at least there are judges in place who uphold it.
The latest example of that was just this week in the 8th Circuit, where judges were forced to strike down two pro-life laws in Arkansas. How is that good news, you’re wondering? Well, one of the issues at stake was the viability of an unborn child. State leaders had decided to outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, when they believed the baby could survive outside the womb with medical help. The usual standard for viability, set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is 24 weeks. But with the evolutions in technology and health care, pro-lifers have always challenged whether that threshold is too high.
Turns out, so do the circuit’s judges. In a surprising — and encouraging — twist to what should have been a bad news story, the Republican-appointed judges urge the Supreme Court to reconsider the viability standard. The only reason they overturned the Arkansas’s laws, they explain, is because they were bound by the high court’s precedent. But it’s a precedent, two judges (and others who concur) argued plainly, that needs to go.
“Today’s opinion,” Judge Bobby Shepherd writes, “is another stark reminder that the viability standard fails to adequately consider the substantial interest of the state in protecting the lives of unborn children as well as the state’s ‘compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.’ Box v. Planned Parenthood (2019). The viability standard does not and cannot contemplate abortions based on an unwanted immutable characteristic of the unborn child.”
The other Arkansas law in question, the one Shepherd alluded to in his opinion, would have outlawed abortions based on a Down Syndrome diagnosis. Judge Ralph Erickson had a difficult time swallowing either decision the court was forced to make, explaining:
“One of the great curses of the 20th century was rise of the eugenics movement. It gave a patina of acceptability to such horrors as genocide, forced sterilization, the development of a master race, and the death of millions of innocents.
The new eugenics movement is more subtle, but a state could nonetheless conclude that it poses a great and grave risk to its citizens. A core value of eugenics is the notion that diversity in the human population should be reduced to maximize and eventually realize the ‘ideal’ of a more ‘perfect person.’ Inherent in this concept is the goal of controlling genetic diversity of a population in order to create a super race: one that is deemed to be healthier, smarter, stronger, and more beautiful. The creation of such a cadre of people would undoubtedly lead to greater discrimination against people who are deemed to be ‘inferior,’ resulting in a broad attack on diversity of the human population.”
While the outcome wasn’t what anyone in Arkansas — or the pro-life movement — wanted, these judges decided to use their power to do something equally significant. It urged the Supreme Court to look again at this issue again and reconsider its outdated and “overly simplistic” view of viability. If the justices listen, then the ultimate victory would be much more monumental for life: in all forms and all places.
Originally published here.
CNN Makes a Mockery of Faith
No one would mistake CNN as a champion of Christianity, but Chris Cuomo’s latest diatribe against Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) crosses a line — even for them. Maybe the network bosses have decided they don’t want the big slice of viewership that the church represents. If not, then they’ve got an uphill climb proving otherwise, especially when they let their junkyard dogs use their airtime to attack faith.
It started as a monologue against Donald Trump (like every other segment on CNN). But the conversation took a turn when Cuomo started bashing Republicans who’d announce that they would refuse to certify the election results. “Those who remain [after Trump is gone], the Kevin McCarthys, the people in the House, the people in the Senate, the man he called Lyin’ Ted, the man he called Little Marco…” Then, Cuomo broke with the president’s labels and started using his own, calling Senator Rubio “Mr. Bible Boy.” “You know, he’s got a Bible quote for every moment — he just never speaks truth to power or acts on any of it in the interest of his own state or of this country.”
Not surprisingly, the backlash was intense on social media from people who took the mockery personally — and rightly so. “Serious question,” one user asked Cuomo. “What traits do you exhibit that could possibly make someone believe that you’re a Christian?” Others agree, insisting that if Cuomo shared Rubio’s faith, he wouldn’t “act [this] way.” Rubio, to his credit, didn’t let Cuomo get away with it, firing back: “The verses I tweet are usually the ones chosen by the Catholic Church for that days mass,” Rubio wrote. “But the fact he thinks words written thousands of years ago are relevant to current events proves the Bible isn’t just a book, it’s the word of God. AMEN.”
Unfazed, Cuomo took the vitriol farther, tweeting early Wednesday morning, “People who put ‘Christian’ first in their bio tend to be the nastiest people I encounter here,” he tweeted early Wednesday morning. “I don’t give a pass for being a member of my religion… no one gets a pass.” Interesting, since I don’t think anyone at CNN would even dream of calling Rev. Raphael Warnock (D) a “Bible boy.” Maybe because the only people the media is interested in marginalizing are people of orthodox faith. Either way, it’s an incredible double standard — and a symbol of just how comfortable CNN is in its contempt.
Ironically, the pushback to Rubio’s Bible postings was a subject he and I talked about right before Christmas “Washington Watch.” It’s not as if Cuomo’s objections to Rubio’s tweets were new. The senator has been maligned — and even challenged by activist groups — on his Bible posts. I asked him why it was so important to him to share those verses every day.
“It’s the first thing I try to do every morning, if it’s possible. [If] it speaks to me, I share it with people. I always tell [my followers], it’s voluntary. You don’t have to read the tweet. You don’t have to follow me if it offends you. But I do two things by design. The first is, I deliberately try to take from the Old Testament, simply because I want it to apply to the broadest audience possible [like our brothers and sisters in] the Jewish faith. For them, it’s scripture as well. But often times, around Christmas and Easter and so forth, I will go into gospel. Second[ly], a lot of people — and this I get a little chuckle from — they think that there’s some sort of hidden message in there. And I would say 80 or 90 percent of the days, it’s straight from either a devotional or frankly, the Catholic reading for that day of the daily mass. And it’s just right out of there.
It speaks to how relevant [the Bible is]. It’s an amazing, amazing book. I mean, the Bible is amazing about the lessons that it has about human nature that apply in many cases, you know, 5,000, 4,000 years. And in the New Testament, over 2,000 years after those words were written, [it shows] how people can take those words and extrapolate and apply to some contemporary issue. And when people get upset, I say, ‘Hey, don’t get mad. I didn’t write the Bible. I just believe in it.’”
Originally published here.
The Zuckerberg Effect: How a Facebook Fortune Changed 2020
How dramatically did Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg change the 2020 election? The Facebook billionaire’s influence, bought through $350 million in political grants, stretched to 2,500 jurisdictions and paid for ballot drop boxes, polling station employees, neighborhood harvesting, and other key decision-making. Did it tilt the outcome? Thomas More Society’s Phill Kline joined us on “Washington Watch” to unpack one of the most disturbing, untold stories from last November.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
