Articles

temp-post-image

December 5, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


We need law that allows those of different views and values to live together peacefully, mutually respecting the ideal of human liberty.

This week, the Supreme Court hears Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Jack Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a wedding cake ordered for a same-sex marriage on grounds that it would force him to create a cake expressing a value opposed to his Christian convictions. The gay men who ordered the cake filed a sexual orientation discrimination claim against him with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission ruled against Phillips.
It was clear that this was not a matter of Phillips refusing to do business with these men because they are gay. He offered to make them any cake they wanted, just not one designed for a same-sex wedding.
Phillips claims his right of free expression under the Constitution's First Amendment.
Some not sympathetic to Phillips' claim argue that making a cake is not artistic expression and has nothing to do with speech protected by the First Amendment.
I'll leave the semantic nuances to the lawyers.
I'd rather consider the spirit of the law and our Constitution.
According to its preamble, the Constitution was established to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
We want a functioning and prosperous society in which everyone can live freely. That's the point.
I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. But as an American, it is no more my business what is happening in my neighbor's home than it is theirs what is happening in mine.
When we move into the public square, our focus needs to be freedom. Not forcing me to accepting the values of others nor them mine. We need law that allows those of different views and values to live together peacefully, mutually respecting the ideal of human liberty.
By this standard, how can we possibly rationalize forcing Phillips to produce a cake against his will, expressing a value anathema to his religion?
How can forcing Phillips to do this be understood in any way as securing for him "the blessings of liberty"?
Those in favor of redefining and legalizing marriage between individuals of the same sex had a great victory in the Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. However, many supporters of that decision distort its spirit. It wasn't about forcing all Americans to accept homosexuality. It was about including this behavior under the umbrella of our guarantees of freedom.
The gay couple that wants to force a Christian man to make a cake for their wedding, against his deepest religious convictions, does not respect the ideal of liberty in which the Obergefell decision was handed down. If they did, they would respect differences and go elsewhere for their cake — something easily done,
According to Pew Research Center, 71 percent of American adults are Christians. Among them, 39 percent say the Bible is "the word of God and should be taken literally." Fifty percent of Evangelical Christians and 59 percent of Black Protestants say the Bible should be understood as the literal word of God.
How can these Christians, white and black, possibly feel that the U.S. Constitution secures for them the "blessings of liberty" if, on a whim, a gay couple can walk into their establishment and demand a product that violates their religious convictions? Especially, when those demanding this product or service can easily obtain it elsewhere.
No, this is not like refusing to serve blacks in a restaurant. The spirit of that behavior is racism, the antithesis of "securing the blessings of liberty."
At the end of the day, our Constitution is only as good as the goodwill of our citizens. Things will only work when the ideal of "securing the blessings of liberty" is taken seriously and respected by all.

Read more

temp-post-image

November 28, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


The less we self-govern through eternal Biblical truths, learned at home and at school, the more we grow government to control our lives.

The avalanche of sexual harassment claims, with new ones pouring forth daily, leads me to the wisdom of George Washington's observation in his farewell address in 1796:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. ... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be managed without religion."
You may say, "There you go again, Star. Waving your Bible."
But is there a better answer for dealing with this problem?
Society, all human life, is guided by rules. The only question before us is: What are the rules that we choose to live by?
Washington's point is crucial. In a free society, one in which we want to minimize government and political control, we must maximize self-governance. Religion, and the morality that emerges from it, provides the rules by which free men and women govern their own behavior.
I will say further that the rules that we learn from scripture provide the framework for a society based on love, respect, and creativity, as opposed to power and control.
And indeed, as we read accounts of the behavior of these men of wealth and influence, who have achieved what many Americans see as the pinnacle of American success, we read descriptions of the behavior of beasts, not men.
Sexuality, outside the framework of mutual love, commitment, and respect between husband and wife, is transformed from a physical expression of intimacy and beauty to the gross and crass behavior of brutes.
That this appears to be so widespread in our society should trouble us all.
So what do we do?
I am a Christian, but I do not believe that our government was designed to mend men's souls. It was designed to allow citizens to live free.
We cannot force citizens to do what Washington advises — learn and be guided by scripture.
What's the alternative?
One is to forget it and let people do what they want. Let women fend for themselves when beastly predators with money and power threaten them.
Few will accept this option.
Alternatively, we can have politicians design our rules. But can this work? Without guidelines of scripture, how do we discern right and wrong, acceptable and forbidden?
This is the trend that has been going on for years. The less we self-govern through eternal Biblical truths, learned at home and at school, the more we grow government to control our lives.
In response to sexual harassment violations perpetrated by some members of Congress, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock has introduced a congressional resolution requiring "all House Members, Officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows, of the House of Representatives shall complete an anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training program during each session of Congress."
Surely, similar programs will be popping up across the industry. So instead of our workforce developing new and better products, more of their time will be spent sitting in anti-harassment training sessions, learning rules designed by bureaucrats.
The Mercatus Center at George Mason University published a report last year on the costs to our economy of the vast growth in the regulatory state from 1977 to 2012. The study concludes that accumulated regulatory growth reduced the size of the American economy in 2012 by 25 percent — $4 trillion of what it might have been.
Aside from economic costs, what are the human costs of our lives increasingly being controlled by bureaucrats?
According to research from Stanford University, 10 percent of married couples meet at work. So much for this, as men will fear giving a woman a second glance at work, let alone saying or doing anything that might hint he's attracted to her.
I see only one viable path to a healthy, free nation. Choose to heed the wisdom of our first president.

Read more

temp-post-image

November 22, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


Voters sense they have been shut out of their own country, that Washington politics is now a spectator sport, where voters have as much influence on what is happening on the field as they have when they watch an NFL game, helped elect Trump.

A group of 44 conservative leaders have sent a letter to all members of Congress that might be called a conservative wake-up call.
The group represents, through their various organizations, a broad array of conservative concerns. But they boil it all down to three areas that all agree need immediate legislative action.
Tax reform, which currently is in the pipeline. Bolstering our defense budget. And getting the federal budget in order through fiscal restraint.
The point these conservatives wish to drive home to Congress is that Donald Trump's election in 2016 was not just an anti-establishment vote. It was a vote to push a crucial agenda, on which he ran, for getting out nation back toward founding principles.
If Congress fails to deliver this essential agenda, say these conservatives, raw dissatisfaction with Washington could well drive unhappy voters apathetically back home, relinquishing power to the left. This might explain Democratic victories in the most recent elections, and particularly the defeat of Republican Ed Gillespie in the race for governor in Virginia.
Gallup polls each month ask Americans, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
No. 1 on the list for the last several months running is "dissatisfaction with government."
Similarly, a recent study from Harvard Business School focuses on dysfunction in Washington and how it is driving widespread public dissatisfaction.
Pew Research polling, cited in this study, shows that only 20 percent of Americans "trust the federal government always or most of the time." For some perspective on how we've changed, in the early 1960s, more than 70 percent of Americans expressed trust in the federal government.
The Harvard study sums up what is driving disaffection among the voting public. "The real problem is that our political system is no longer designed to serve the public interest, and has been slowly reconfigured to benefit the private interests of gain-seeking private organizations: the political parties and their industry allies."
Hence, the sentiment to elect an "outsider" like Trump to "drain the swamp."
Donald Trump is the fifth American president to never have had held prior elective office. But he is the first to never have served in any public office. Three of the five, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower were generals. Herbert Hoover was a businessman, but he had been head of the U.S. Food Administration and was Secretary of Commerce before being elected president.
Donald Trump is the first American president with zero prior experience in public life. He was elected as a true outsider.
A sense among voters that they have been shut out of their own country, that Washington politics is now a spectator sport, where voters have as much influence on what is happening on the field as they have when they watch an NFL game, helped elect Trump.
Conservative leaders want to convey that the political capital of this dissatisfaction is short lived. Trump voters are looking for the agenda.
Fortunately, the president can still move things forward administratively. And, indeed, the Trump administration is getting high grades for deregulation on a broad front. This is helping to drive the current economic recovery.
But Congress needs to get into the fray.
We still need to fix health care. The Congressional Budget Office notes the dangers of our national debt, which now hovers around 100 percent of our GDP.
With Speaker Paul Ryan's leadership, the House has just passed critically important tax reform. Now Senate leadership must herd the cats and get this passed. This first sweeping tax reform in over 30 years is vital for an economy looking for oxygen.
The election of Donald Trump was a political event without precedent in our nation's history. Conservative leaders are sounding the alarm in Washington, reminding Congress what the 2016 election meant. And that the clock is ticking.

Read more

temp-post-image

November 14, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


Envy doesn't create wealth. Freedom and character does.

A new study released by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., headlines what they see as shocking news that in America some people are much wealthier than others.
Some findings of the study, entitled "Billionaire Bonanza: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us," are:
— "The three wealthiest people in the United States — Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett — now own more wealth than the entire bottom half of the American population."
— The 400 billionaires on the Forbes 400 list "now own more wealth than the bottom 64 percent of the American population."
— "One in five US households ...have zero or negative net worth. Over 30 percent of black households and 27 percent of Latino households have zero or negative net worth."
The message that IPS wishes to convey here is that there's a connection between wealth at the top and dismal economic circumstances at the bottom. That is, the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
Their proposed solution for narrowing the gap between rich and poor follows this premise. The way to make the poor less poor, in their view, is to make the rich less rich. And, of course, they propose to do this with government power. "By taxing our wealthiest, we could raise significant revenues and then invest these funds to expand wealth-building opportunities across the economy."
If we accept the questionable assumption that higher taxes on the wealthy would raise "significant revenues," who exactly, according to their plan, would invest these funds to produce all these new opportunities?
Those with the greatest investment skills are those on the Forbes 400 list, who the IPS sees as the problem and who they want to punish for being successful.
So in all likelihood it's a government bureaucrat that they want to put in charge of making these brilliant "wealth-building" investments.
But bureaucrats would not be bureaucrats if they knew how to invest and create wealth. We've been through this before — the list of failed government projects is long. Recall most recently the Solyndra scandal — the failed solar panel firm backed by the Obama administration — leaving taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal guarantees.
Who are these billionaires on the Forbes 400 list? Joshua Rauh of the Stanford University School of Business and Steven Kaplan of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business studied the list.
In 2011, 32 percent came from wealthy families, compared to 60 percent in 1982. And in 2011, 69 percent started their own businesses compared to 40 percent in 1982. So these are increasingly individuals who created their own wealth.
And the fact is, the wealthy already pay the lion's share of the nation's taxes, and this has increased over time.
According to the Tax Foundation, in 2014, those whose incomes were in the top 1 percent paid 39.5 percent of all taxes. In 1982, the top 1 percent paid 19 percent of all taxes. Raising taxes more on the highest income earners will benefit tax lawyers and lobbyists and do little for the rest of us.
Envy doesn't create wealth. Freedom and character does. How about we focus less on punishing those who succeed and more on helping those who are not realizing their potential?
Harvard economist Martin Feldstein estimates that cutting corporates taxes would raise national income by $500 billion — $3,500 per household. I say we cut them even more for businesses opening in distressed communities.
Let's admit that our massive welfare state has been a disaster. I have long been for allowing low-income Americans to stop paying the payroll tax and instead use these funds to invest in a personal retirement account to build personal wealth.
These are just starters. We should be looking for ideas to bring up the bottom. Not dragging down the top.

Read more

temp-post-image

November 7, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

Read more

temp-post-image

Read more

temp-post-image

October 24, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

Today, the values transmitted in public schools are based on secular humanism. Why should Christian families, or families of any religion, be forced to swallow this?

Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill famously observed, "All politics is local."
We have a particularly sharp example in an upcoming school board election in Douglas County, Colorado, that has far reaching national implications.
At issue is the Blaine Amendment, which appears in constitutions of 38 states.
The Blaine Amendment prohibits appropriation of public funds to any religiously affiliated institution. Each state has its own wording for this provision, but the bottom line is the same in each state — no public money for anything having to do with religion.
The Blaine Amendment issue at the center of the upcoming school board election in Douglas County is about parental school choice.
In 2011, the Douglas County Board of Education unanimously voted to enact a school voucher program, establishing 500 vouchers that student recipients could use at any private school of their choice, including religious schools.
The program was challenged by the nation's usual anti-religion crusaders — the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The legal challenge made its way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which ruled in 2015 against the voucher program, finding that it violated Colorado's Blaine Amendment. According to the court, the vouchers, which are financed with public funds, violate the Blaine Amendment when these vouchers are used by students to attend religiously affiliated schools. According to the court, 9 out of 10 students intending to use the vouchers planned to attend religious schools.
Now elections are being held for a new school board in Douglas County.
If a pro-school choice board is elected, the legal fight over vouchers and the Blaine Amendment will continue and most likely will wind up at the U.S. Supreme Court. The court would then rule on the constitutionality of using the Blaine Amendment to block using vouchers for religious schools. If an anti-voucher school board is elected, the voucher issue, for the time being, will die.
A Supreme Court decision finding the Blaine Amendment an unconstitutional barrier to vouchers will nullify a major obstacle to school choice in the 38 states that have these amendments. Thus the sweeping national implications of one local school board election.
Recent Supreme Court decisions touching both the Blaine Amendment and the issue of using school vouchers for religious schools suggest that indeed the Blaine Amendment obstacle would be demolished if the Supreme Court hears this case.
In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the court decided in 2002 that use of vouchers for religious schools does not violate the First Amendment, which prohibits government-sanctioned religion. The court argued that vouchers enable private choice by parents. Thus, there is no direct government support of religious schools.
The Blaine Amendment is named for Congressman James G. Blaine, who unsuccessfully introduced legislation in 1875 to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent any use of public funds toward religious institutions. Despite the failure of Blaine's initiative to amend the Constitution, 38 states enacted the provision as part of their state constitutions.
History is clear that Blaine's motives were not about religious freedom. It was an anti-Catholic initiative, meant to block the use of public funds for Catholic schools.
At the time, public schools weren't free of religion. Rather, the values defining public school curricula were Protestant.
Today, the values transmitted in public schools are based on secular humanism.
Why should Christian families, or families of any religion, be forced to swallow this?
The only approach to education today that is consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is parental school choice, allowing parents to educate their children according to their own values.
Let's hope those who can make a difference in this election will elect a pro-voucher board, for the good of Douglas Country and for the good of the nation.


#education

Read more

temp-post-image

October 17, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

As the culture war in America rages, Trump understands the political dividends to be gained by clearly supporting traditional Christian values and unabashed American patriotism.

President Trump addressed this year's annual Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C. He is the first sitting U.S. president to do so.
The Values Voters Summit is hosted by the Family Research Council, an organization whose mission is addressing public policy and culture from a Christian point of view. My organization CURE works closely with FRC and I have been a regular speaker at this Summit for years.
Its base is largely evangelical Christians, and this is why President Trump deemed it appropriate to appear.
Eighty-one percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016, the highest percentage of evangelical support for any Republican in the last four presidential elections.
According to the Pew Research Center, 36 percent of the electorate self-identifies as evangelical Christian, so it's indicative of Trump's strong political instincts that he has gone out to actively engage this important and significant base of support.
It's my sense that Trump's relationship with evangelicals is growing stronger.
During the election, he was by and large an unknown quantity to these folks. And given his history, there was good reason for evangelicals to have reservations in their support.
But there was one issue critical enough to drive their support — replacing Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia with another judge of equally stellar conservative credentials.
Trump, as he reminded the audience in his Values Voters address, has not let them down with his appointment of new Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia, and a string of equally impressive other conservative lower court appointments.
However, since the election, Trump has taken actions that have expanded, broadened and shored up his relations with this evangelical base.
He began by re-instating the Mexico City policy, first initiated by President Reagan in 1984 and later rescinded by President Obama, which prohibits U.S foreign aid from being used by overseas organizations to perform abortions.
He recently opened the door for employers with religious objections to bail out of the Obamacare requirement of providing birth control devices and pills to employees free of charge.
Trump's clear support of Israel — he was also the first sitting American president to visit Israel in the early months of his presidency and to visit the Western Wall in the old city of Jerusalem — appeals to Evangelicals. And the recent announcement by the Trump administration that the United States will withdraw from the anti-American, anti-Israel United Nations agency UNESCO.
As the culture war in America rages, Trump understands the political dividends to be gained by clearly supporting traditional Christian values and unabashed American patriotism.
There has not been a time more important in recent history to take on these matters, and President Trump is stepping up.
Most in America's evangelical communities, including substantial numbers of black evangelicals, were appalled when Obama moved to support LGBTQ secularism, even lighting up the White House in rainbow flag colors. Equally appalling to evangelicals was Obama agreeing to be the first sitting American president to address the annual meeting of Planned Parenthood, America's largest abortion provider, concluding his address to these abortionists with, "God bless you."
In recent Gallup polling, in response to the question if government "should promote traditional values in our society," 66 percent of Republicans versus 30 percent of Democrats say "yes."
Addressing this conservative Republican base is what Trump took on in his Values Voters speech. He conveyed what our Founding Fathers understood — that a free society needs morality and morality needs religion, a nation under God.
While liberals are tiptoeing around the underlying truths conveyed by Trump at the Values Voters summit, millions of Americans across all ethnic lines are listening to the president's message and are ready to hear more.


#culture wars

Read more

temp-post-image

October 10, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

Feminists want government out of our bedrooms, but want government to force our employers into our bedrooms, as long as they show up with their checkbook.

Arguing for protection of religious freedom, the Trump administration has opened the door for employers to withdraw from the Affordable Care Act mandate requiring them to provide birth control coverage at no cost to employees.
Under new rules issued by Department of Health and Human Services, religiously affiliated institutions that find the requirement opposed to their religious principles, or nonreligious employers who find it morally objectionable, can stop providing this coverage.
The birth control mandate when first issued under the ACA exempted only houses of worship. This provoked a host of lawsuits among which was that of Hobby Lobby, a closely held firm controlled by evangelical Christians. That lawsuit made its way to the Supreme Court, which granted an exemption to these kinds of "closely held" businesses.
We now have, in this new blanket release for employers with religious and moral objections, an important and meaningful step toward reviving and restoring the integrity of our precious religious freedom, under siege now for years.
Lawsuits against the Trump administration are now starting to flow. The American Civil Liberties Union claims, "The Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their boss's religious beliefs ... the government cannot authorize discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise."
The total disinterest of those on the left regarding the ideals toward which our Constitution aspires, and their readiness to rewrite it all in the service of their own narrow left-wing agenda, never ceases to amaze.
Let's recall that the preamble to the U.S. Constitution says that the point of the whole effort is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Is there anyone that could possibly believe that among these "blessings of liberty" is government mandating employers to buy birth control devices and pills for their employees? And that if they don't, women are forced "to pay for their boss's religious beliefs"?
Dripping with irony, and absurdity, is the insistence of these same feminists and left-wing activists that government stay out of our bedrooms, while they are more than glad for government to force our employers into our bedrooms, as long as they show up with their checkbook.
Birth control that the Affordable Care Act requires that employers provide free includes Plan B and ella, both considered by some in the medical community as abortifacients — abortion-inducing pills.
It really doesn't matter that there are differences of opinion regarding exactly how these pills operate. The fact that there are credible medical sources that see these pills as abortifacients is sufficient, in my view, to understand and respect the religious sensibilities here.
Increasing infringement on religious freedom comes part and parcel with the massive expansion of government, particularly over the last half century.
In 1970, less than 30 percent of the federal budget consisted of transfer payments to individuals. By 2013, this was up to 70 percent. Of this 70 percent, almost 40 percent is health care expenditures. So the percentage of individual health care expenditures paid or mandated by the government has increased substantially over the years.
As we turn more power over to government, our lives become increasingly politicized and we relinquish more and more of our freedom. Washington bureaucrats, working with armies of lobbyists, impose their values on us. These values often carry the banner of political expedience and secular humanism, pushing religious freedom out the door.
As the tsunami of government mandated secularism washes away religious freedom of Christians and others, we're seeing more pushback.
The Supreme Court will hear soon Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission where a Christian baker defends his freedom to not bake cakes decorated for a same-sex marriage.
Religious freedom is a bedrock principle defining our nation. It can't be compromised. Kudos to President Trump for working to liberate businesses from left wing tyranny codified into Obamacare.


#healthcare

Read more

temp-post-image

October 3, 2017 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

When Judge Moore associates the ongoing pointless violence around the nation, the chaos around the world, with moral decay, this touches a responsive chord among many citizens.

To the dismay of Washington's Republican Senate leadership, Judge Roy Moore crushed Luther Strange in the runoff for the Republican nomination for the open Senate seat in Alabama, outpolling Strange by 9 percentage points.
Senate Republican leadership, and President Trump, stood behind Strange.
The Republican establishment doesn't want their party branded with Moore's hardcore, outspoken Christian fundamentalism. They don't buy it and they're afraid that it will spill over to challenges in upcoming Senate races and hurt their party.
But the same flawed political conventional wisdom that led Republican leadership to back the wrong candidate in this race is operating all the time, and lessons never seem to be learned.
Ohio Governor John Kasich expressed his trepidations, on one of the Sunday morning talk shows, about the state of the Republican Party, and when asked if Judge Moore represents the party's future, he said, "I hope not."
Kasich ran for the presidency against Donald Trump and in the end refused to support Trump. He said he wrote in John McCain on his ballot.
But McCain is a poster child for why voters are fed up with Washington.
He's been a Washington fixture since 1983 who has refused to go home.
In his failed presidential run against Barack Obama, McCain refused endorsements from major evangelical pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley, surely alienating evangelical voters that he critically needed.
After his defeat, he should have retired. Instead, he ran again for re-election twice, once at age 74 and again at age 80.
If he gracefully retired in 2010, as he should have, chances are a young conservative would be in his seat, McCain's key obstructive vote against Republican health care reform would not have been there and we would have a health care bill today and the beginning of the unwinding of Obamacare.
In 2012, Todd Akin, a six-term Republican congressman from Missouri with a flawless conservative voting record, ran for the Senate against incumbent liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Polling in the early months of the campaign was neck and neck. A Rasmussen Poll in June had Akin ahead 50 percent to 42 percent. A Survey USA poll in early August showed Akin's lead at 51 percent to 43 percent.
Then, in late August, Akin spoke poorly in a TV interview. The reporter prodded him regarding difficult questions on abortion and Akin used the unfortunate term "legitimate rape." He later apologized about his poor use of language, stating the obvious that he was not justifying rape.
Instead of Republicans coming to support a good conservative in a winnable and critical race, they dove for cover. It was reported that Senator John Cornyn, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, conveyed to Akin that funding from the party would dry up if he didn't withdraw from the race.
Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney said Akin should drop out.
In the end, Romney lost, Aiken lost, and control of the Senate went back to the Democrats.
Now Senator Cornyn is making the same kind of remarks about Judge Moore as he did about Todd Akin, responding, "I do not," when asked if he thinks Moore will be a productive addition to the Republican senatorial team.
When Judge Moore associates the ongoing pointless violence around the nation, the chaos around the world, with moral decay, this touches a responsive chord among many citizens.
Critical local elections this November will test our moral mettle. A transgender individual is trying to capture a seat in the Virginia state assembly. The teachers union in Colorado, looking to a 19th-century dinosaur called the Blaine Amendment, which blocks government funds to schools with religious affiliation, is trying unseat a Douglas County school board supporting school vouchers.
Contrary to hurting, Moore's candidacy bolsters Republican credibility nationwide. The problem of moral chaos may not be clear to Washington insiders, but it is to many voters across America.

#culturewars

Read more