Category Archives: Religious Freedom

It’s Ducey, Brnovich, Douglas, Reagan in GOP Primary

Doug Ducey has won the Arizona Republican primary race for governor. RINO Scott Smith is in second, with Christine Jones third, Ken Bennett fourth, Andy Thomas fifth and former congressman Frank Riggs sixth.

Mark Brnovich is ending scandal-ridden RINO Tom Horne’s reign as Arizona attorney general.

Diane Douglas ousted incumbent John Huppenthal for Superintendent for Public Instruction. Douglas ran on her opposition to Common Core education, which Huppenthal supported.

RINO Michele Reagan is winning the nomination for secretary of state. She will most likely lose in November to Democrat Terry Goddard.

Jeff DeWitt is heading for victory in the three-man primary race for state treasurer, with RINO Hugh Hallmann in second and former AZ GOP chairman Randy Pullen running third.

Wendy Rogers is leading Andrew Walter by about 5,000 votes in the GOP Congressional District 9 race.

Gary Kiehe is surprisingly leading in the GOP Congressional District 1 in a close race with Adam Kwasman and Andy Tobin.

Several incumbent congressmen ran unopposed.

In the Republican race for Arizona Corporation Commissioner, Tom Forese and Doug Little have secured nominations for November’s general election.

In a huge disappointment, Arizona-bashing Bob Worsley has defeated challenger Dr. Ralph Heap in the State Senate race for District 25.  

Additionally, John Giles won handily over conservative Danny Ray in the election for mayor in Mesa. Giles was backed by all the current councilmen — all of whom, incidentally, were identified as “friends” and “champions” of Big Government by Americans for Tax Prosperity.

During the summer campaign, The Arizona Conservative questioned the loyalty of many Republican candidates to GOP principles. Several of those candidates won or did well tonight, raising additional questions about Republican voters, as well. Do personalities and advertising tactics weigh more heavily with Republican voters, or do they observe GOP principle as their criteria for voting decisions? The answer is in, and the GOP platform was a big loser in here in Arizona this summer. And as we said previously, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting. For many of the candidates — particularly Smith, Hallmann, Reagan, Worsley, Horne, and others — it has not been tried. Obviously, conservatives have much to do to educate Republicans in this state, which appears to be drifting away from the conservative principles that made America great.

DEVELOPING …

In Arizona Primary, Who Would President Reagan Vote For?

Primary season is in full swing here in Arizona until its conclusion August 26th. Many hotly contested races are already being impacted by early voting. Until now, one very crucial question has evaded all: if President Ronald Reagan were still alive, and if he was a registered voter in Arizona, who would he vote for?

President Reagan personified the very essence of what it means to be a true Republican. If he examined the candidates in the Grand Canyon State, their past performances and what they stand for, how would he fill out his ballot? It’s a burning question that has waited until now to be asked and answered.

President Reagan once said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.”

President Reagan was one of America’s greatest champions for liberty:

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.

The other party exploits the natural division between business and labor. Republicans are trying to bring all our citizens together in a campaign for economic progress.

Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.

I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.

President Reagan was the first presidential candidate to adopt a position in support of the value of human life:

I call America–a good nation, a moral people–to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman’s right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense. But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt.

With President Reagan’s values in mind, we have a pretty good idea of how America’s greatest modern era president would have filled out his 2014 Arizona Primary ballot. Here it is:

Governor: Andy Thomas
Secretary of State: Will Cardon
Attorney General: Mark Brnovich
Treasurer: Randy Pullen
Supt. Of Public Instruction: Diane Douglas
State Mining Inspector: Joe Hart
Arizona Corporation Commission: Tom Forese, Vernon Parker

Congress
District 1: Adam Kwasman
District 2: Martha McSally or Chuck Wooten
District 3: Gabriela Saucedo Mercer
District 4: Paul Gosar
District 5: Matt Salmon
District 6: David Schweikert
District 7: no one
District 8: Trent Franks
District 9: Wendy Rogers

State Senators

Connie Uribe
Kelli Ward
The late Chester Crandall
Irene Littleton
Steve Smith
Andy Biggs
Ralph Heap
Don Shooter
Gail Griffin
Nancy Barto
David Farnsworth
Steve Yarbrough
Tom Morrissey
Kimberly Yee
Debbie Lesko
John Kavanaugh
Gary Cox

State Representatives

Linda Gray
Karen Fann
Sam Medrano
Brenda Barton
Darla Dawald
Vince Leach
Mark Finchem
Eddie Farnsworth
Warren Peterson
Darin Mitchell
Steve Montenegro
David Gowan
David Stephens
John Allen
David Smith
Kelly Townsend
John Fillmore
J.D. Mesnard
Jeff Weninger
John King
Jill Norgaard
Paul Boyer
Carl Seel
Rick Gray
David Livingston
Phil Lovas
Jay Lawrence
Michelle Ugenti
Rusty Bowers
Jerry Walker
Justin Olson
Shawnna Bolick
Mayor
Mesa–Danny Ray

Social Justice Defined

By Janice Shaw Crouse

Social justice, as it is popularly used, is probably the worst threat to freedom of religion in America today. Under the guise of helping the oppressed and uplifting victims of society, progressives, using the rhetoric of social justice as a battering ram, are attacking freedom of religion in America. Social justice is not a coherent concept so much as it is yet another form of social engineering in disguise. (See Michael Novakhere and here.)

Instead of addressing the real moral problems of society or working to find solutions to situations involving fundamental injustice, social justice focuses on the popular causes of special interest groups. Often, those who disagree with the social justice agenda are accused of injustice, and their right to freedom of religion is trampled over by social justice advocates demanding the rights of special interest groups.

The recent Hobby Lobby case is a good example of the harm that the social justice philosophy can do to freedom of religion. Business owners whose personal moral convictions would not allow them to provide abortifacient birth control methods for their employees were accused of social injustice toward women. Conservatives and other pro-life advocates pointed out that birth control is available inexpensively and conveniently at clinics and over the counter at corner pharmacies. The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do with social justice and everything to do with religious freedom. The case was a battle of ideologies — a battle of opposing viewpoints and a battle to decide the future of freedom in America. Essentially, the Hobby Lobby case was a fight between those who advocate special “rights” for a particular segment of the American population and those who believe in the importance of preserving religious freedom for all Americans.

Generally, conservatives avoid using the phrase “social justice,” but that does not mean lack of interest in the well-being of others. Justice requires equal treatment before the law for everyone; it should never be preceded by a word that would limit the extent of its capacity to only a portion of the population. Social justice is, therefore, not real justice and, indeed, hurts true justice, because it focuses on discrimination in favor of special interest groups and segments of society instead of justice for all individuals.

Indeed, the words “social” and “justice” represent mutually exclusive concepts. TheConservative Mind states, “Justice implies a person is getting what he deserves for acts committed by him as an individual … [while social justice] rewards others not on their merit but on their membership in a chosen group.” By themselves, the words “justice” and “freedom” are both principles that most Americans wholeheartedly believe in, principles that have always existed in harmony with each other. But when other words are added — “social justice” and “freedom of religion” — the two become incompatible concepts.

While religious freedom is a universal right to which everyone is entitled, social justice is inherently discriminatory. Instead of empowering people to stand for their individual rights, it herds them together and classifies them based on their gender, race, economic condition, or other qualifying factor. Although the proponents of social justice tout it as a means to eliminate discrimination, the very foundation of its advocates’ principles and actions is the discrimination they claim to oppose. Social justice is both “divisive and destructive,” as well as being a “concept that festers both hatred and guilt.” Without discrimination to separate people into distinct groups, social justice could not exist. On the other hand, religious freedom is inherently non-discriminatory and unifying. It doesn’t relate to one’s skin color, gender, education, or any other form of classification. Instead, social justice ignores the importance of individual responsibility in society. Instead of acknowledging people’s personal responsibility for their actions, social justice chooses to view people only as they fit into certain groups: the oppressors and their victims who deserve redress and compensations. The end result is ultimately a “sense of entitlement” that “tears down incentives and builds up dependence.”

While freedom of religion brings people together through its acknowledgment of and respect for personal convictions, social justice divides communities by forcing people into unrealistic classifications. When the individual’s freedom of religion is respected, citizens can hold and express personal convictions. But when social justice is enforced, citizens face a hostile environment where they are forced to play the role of either the oppressor or the oppressed, as either the exploiter or the victim. Social justice creates a society where one is automatically cast as a “good guy” or a “bad guy” simply on the basis of factors that one cannot necessarily control. As it champions the supposed rights of a portion of the population, social justice accuses the rest of the population of being the perpetrators of injustice and labels those who disagree with its philosophy as “racists” or “haters.”

The social justice vision of America is neither just nor reasonable. Freedom of religion is an element of true justice, while social justice, as preached and practiced, is an element of injustice.

AZ GOP Brand? What Brand?

If this primary election season demonstrates one thing, it’s the wanton disregard of the Arizona Republican Party brand. Five out of six gubernatorial candidates are far off the Republican Party platform reservation, and so are many, many other so-called “Republican” candidates for public office.

It is not that the Republican brand has been tried and failed. For many, it’s never been tried.

That’s especially true for some of our highest-ranking elected officials, such as U.S. Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake and current candidate for governor Scott Smith. What they’re talking about, and the way they legislate, is currently motivated by self interest — in no way consistent with the written word of the Republican brand.

It’s not a recent phenomenon. It stretches back for quite some time.

If you just listen to elected officials and candidates for public office speak, you’d think being being Republican is a 360-degree range, including views from pro-life to pro-abortion, from pro-family to redefinition of the family, from big government to limited government. You quickly hear situational ethics by candidates, promises and yarns spun just to get elected — detached by miles and miles from the GOP national platform.

The 2012 Republican Platform preamble begins as “a statement of who we are and what we believe as a Party and our vision for a stronger and freer America.”

Sen. McCain blazes a John McCain trail unlinked to much of what the GOP platform states. He has spent thousands of dollars to remove platform-aligned Republicans from his pathway. They are an impediment to the arbitrary and unwritten “McCain Platform.” He fights conservatives much harder than he fights radical Democrats, much harder than he fought against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Sen. Flake is his hand-picked puppet, now in the tank for the radical homosexual agenda. Retired Sen. Jon Kyl is his first lieutenant. McCain seldom shows his face at AZ GOP events, but make no mistake he is pulling the strings from behind the curtain, through his surrogates.

Do you hear many Arizona candidates heeding this from the party platform?

This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government’s most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum. If we celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If we lift up the middle class. If we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity, rather than entitlements and indebtedness.

Scott Smith, the entire Mesa City Council, and numerous Republican legislators, like Bob Worsley and Jeff Dial, and numerous city councilmen and women are champions of big government.

State Sen. Michele Reagan is a virtual Planned Parenthood activist and also a friend of the homosexual agenda.

Smith and former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman are in the tank for the radical homosexual agenda, supporting policies that ensnare Christians trying to freely live out their faith and their consciences. The platform calls for preserving and protecting traditional marriage and family — not undermining it.

It’s clear that Sen. Worsley, McCain, Smith, Hallman and others establish their own personal brand as they go, bending every which way but Republican. It’s just helpful to tack on the Republican identifier to fool some voters at election time.

The GOP platform speaks of reforming government to serve the people. Many Republicans in Arizona are drafting policies to make people serve government. They love spending other people’s money, and they are very, very good at it. For those leaders offended by this admonishment, the platform includes a phrase about “protecting the people’s money.” That means safeguarding the hard-earned dollars of the people you serve, not gulping up their money to dream up non-essential ways to burn through it.

It is not only the elect who stray from GOP branding; it’s many of the citizens, too. Few bond elections, raising your taxes, ever lose. And over-rides extend the taxes that the wise elected so often under-estimated the original costs. It’s time to learn the value of a dollar, the public’s dollar.

Arizona Republicans are too often lacking in principle. Governor Jan Brewer opposed Obamacare at first, then caved in and said let’s grab that money — the taxpayers’ money. The platform talks of repealing Obamacare.

The platform discussed building great schools. Our Republican education superintendent of public instruction, John Huppenthal, abandoned his conservative roots and took us down the road of Big Government Common Core “education” and now claims he didn’t do such a thing. Common Core’s brand is so trashed the name has been changed in Arizona in an attempt to cover its true identity.

The Republican Party says it values the sanctity of human life. Our de facto state Republican leader, Sen. McCain, is in favor of cheapening life to the point of supporting destructive embryonic stem cell research. He speaks the leftist talk of choice.

The platform is conservative to the core, but the political director guiding Doug Ducey, one of those candidates for governor, trashed conservatives. Among the other GOP candidates for governor, Christine Jones praised Hillary Clinton to the hilt, Ken Bennett is pro-life but bashed a bill aimed at strengthening religious freedom, Frank Riggs did the same and his time as a California congressman wasn’t quite as conservative as he wants us to believe. Only Andrew Thomas resonates as a true conservative, despite an outrageous judge taking him down for exposing county corruption during his time as Maricopa County attorney.

Sen. Worsley says he needed to run in 2012 because his district was divided over harsh rhetoric. This from a man calling conservatives “extremists” and “haters” and labeling Arizona “a police state.” That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

As you cast your ballots for the primary election, again in the November general election, and in future elections, the following list of brand violaters should prove helpful:

Sen. John McCain
Sen. Jeff Flake
Gov. Jan Brewer (term limited out)
State Sen. Bob Worsley
State Sen. Steve Pierce
State Rep. Doug Coleman
State Sen. Jeff Dial
State Sen. Michele Reagan (Secretary of State candidate)
State Rep. Heather Carter
State Rep. Frank Pratt
State Rep. T.J. Shope
State Rep. Bob Robson
State Sen. Adam Driggs
State Sen. Steve Pierce
State Rep. Ethan Orr
Congressional Candidate Andy Tobin
Former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman
Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith
Arizona Corporation Commission candidate Lucy Mason

Former elected officials/candidates Susan Bitter-Smith, Betsy Bayless, Carol Springer, Carolyn Allen, Randall Gnant, Steve Huffman, Pete Hershberger, Slade Mead (now officially a Democrat for all to see), Steve May, Linda Binder, Sue Gerard, Jane Hull, Fife Symington, Toni Hellon, Mike Hellon, Carol Somers, Jim Kolbe, Kris Mayes, Bill Konopnicki, Neil Giuliano

Gov Candidate Smith Isn’t Pro-Life, Doesn’t Support School Choice, but Does Support Homosexual Agenda

The Center for Arizona Policy has just released its online voter guide for the upcoming Arizona Primary election season ending August 26. A review of the candidates for governor reveals some mighty interesting things:
  • Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith is NOT pro-life, he opposes school choice and vouchers, he supports the homosexual agenda’s efforts to add gender identity to anti-discrimination laws. There is a name for such candidates: liberal.
  • Smith, Ken Bennett, Doug Ducey, Christine Jones, and Frank Riggs ALL say they support religious freedom! However, all five of them opposed Senate Bill 1062, which … would have protected religious freedom for Arizonans. They must think you voters have not been paying attention.
  • The only candidate who supported religious freedom and 1062 is Andrew Thomas. He also supports the sanctity of life, marriage as the union of one man and one woman, border enforcement and school choice. That’s why we are endorsing Andrew Thomas for governor. As mayor of Mesa, Smith and the city council loved spending other people’s money. All of them are friends of big government. Ducey is the McCain establishment candidate, and is now being accused of scamming people through Cold Stone Creamery. He said if he was governor he would veto 1062, and then he bragged he was the first candidate to say that. Ouch!

 

  • Secretary of State candidate Michele Reagan (RINO) is in favor of abortion, Big Gambling, Planned Parenthood-style sex education, and the homosexual agenda plan to add gender identity to anti-discrimination laws. She also opposes religious freedom.

 

  • Hugh Hallman answered only two CAP voter guide categories, two that are guaranteed to attract left-wing voters. He supports domestic partner benefits and Common Core education! This is how a “Republican” gets elected mayor in liberalville Tempe!
 The CAP voter guide definitely helps separate the Republicans from the RINOs.
Check out the Center for Arizona Policy’s voter guide.

Congressman Franks’ List of Obama Failures

Presidential Preference: Senator Cruz, Dr. Carson

Dear Republican National Committee:

This short letter is to inform you of our 2016 presidential candidate preference. We recommend the following two men as acceptable — and highly capable! — candidates:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz

Dr. Benjamin Carson

Both of these men are well qualified to lead our nation. They understand the Constitution, they know the problems wrought on us by socialism and other failed Democrat policies. Both offer the best possible chances of correcting the destructive course of the current administration and leading responsibly and effectively.

We offer the following individuals as unacceptable presidential candidates:

Jeb Bush

Gov. Chris Christie

 

Gov. Brewer Endorsing RINOs

With the Arizona primary election only a few weeks away, lame duck Gov. Jan Brewer is endorsing every liberal Republican she can find.

Brewer endorsed RINO State Senator Michele Reagan for secretary of state: “I’ve had the pleasure of working with Senator Reagan for years crafting sound public policy for Arizona.”

Crafting sound policy? Not for the unborn children the abortion-supporting Reagan would condemn to death with her unyielding support of abortion.

It is crucial that Reagan not be elected secretary of state. If a governor does not complete his/her term, the secretary of state becomes governor. This is how Brewer gained the governor’s office.

Brewer endorsed Sen. Bob Worsley, the RINO who called Arizona “a police state.” Worsley also voted for HB 1062, then cowardly switched sides when the radical homofascists started screaming. They also stampeded Gov. Brewer into fearfully vetoing the religious freedom bill.

The governor endorsed RINO Rep. Heather Carter: “I am honored to endorse Representative Heather Carter in her re-election campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives. In the face of the worst economic downturn in our state’s history, Heather Carter has continuously proven to be a conservative leader, fighting for commonsense economic policies and smaller, responsible government.”

However, in Rep. Carter’s House tenure, she has earned a dubious failing grade from Americans from Prosperity: “friend of big government.”

Incidentally, this is the same failing grade Gov. Brewer earned from Americans for Prosperity, a watchdog group for taxpayers.

CAP: Hobby Lobby and 1062

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to affirm the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights of the Green Family (who own Hobby Lobby) and the Hahn family (who own Conestoga Wood Specialties) had a very real tie to Arizona’s SB 1062.

One of the primary purposes CAP supported SB 1062 was to clarify Arizona’s own Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ensure that every Arizonan is not forced to surrender their religious beliefs merely because they start a business.

In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito echoed this fundamental principle when he wrote:

“Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith.

Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law.”

Make no mistake, this was no small victory for religious freedom, but it also is not the final word. There is still much to be done to ensure every Arizonan is free to live and work according to their faith.

As with SB 1062, opponents have launched a massive misinformation campaign about the decision. Take time to understand what government mandates were objectionable to the Green and Hahn families. The federal government attempted to compel the family-owned businesses to provide and pay for abortion medication in their employee health insurance plans. Hobby Lobby did not object to providing 16 of 20 contraceptive medications mandated by the government – it’s the other four that can function to cause an abortion that were objectionable.

Mad Libbing: Embittered Lefties Crying Rivers over Supreme Court Loss

 

By the Family Research Council

If you wanted to see fireworks in D.C., you didn’t have to wait for July 4th. Yesterday’s decision on the HHS mandate exploded on the media scene, lighting a fuse under the radicals of the Left. While most Americans watched with pleasure as a pillar of ObamaCare fell, liberals sulked at another loss for lawlessness. Democrats couldn’t fire off their press releases fast enough as they vowed to push their assault on faith in the marketplace by ending justices’ opt-out. Promising a legislative fix, Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted that Americans’ “right” to sex-on-demand trumps a company’s deeply held beliefs on contraception and abortifacients.

As out of touch as liberals are with the law, it turns out that they’re even more out of touch with voters. While the Left trotted out its tired “war on women” line, FRC’s Cathy Ruse pointed out that the majority of women opposed the mandate — including 60% of the lower court female judges who voted to stop it!

Our own survey, which helped shape the messaging for the entire movement, confirmed the trend. Back in May, WPA Opinion Research found in an FRC-commissioned poll that 53% of voters (including 50% of women!) disapproved of the idea that employers’ should have to pay for workers’ sexual decisions. So if there is a war, it’s on the facts.

While the Twitter world ignites with threats of burning down Hobby Lobby stores (and a record number of profane comments), most of the outrage is entirely unfounded. As Sean Davis explained, “The truth of the matter is that the case was about abortion, specifically four types of contraception that can result in the destruction of a fertilized egg. Hobby Lobby paid for 16 different types of non-abortive contraceptive coverage for its employees.”

As liberals try to spin this into a debate about denying women free “reproductive care,” the reality is that the federal government already gives out free birth control and abortion drugs at Title X clinics all across America. What the Court said was that it’s not right to order conscientious objectors to provide it, under threat of crippling fines, when there are other ways to get it to them. Plus, the Federalist jabs, there’s no such thing as “denying access” to birth control if these businesses are paying employees wages they can then use to buy whatever they want. But unfortunately, the Left never lets the truth get in the way of a convenient sound bite.

Meanwhile, the political debate goes on. House Speaker John Boehner, like more than two dozen other members, praised Monday’s ruling. “Today’s decision is a victory for religious freedom and another defeat for an administration that has repeatedly crossed constitutional lines in pursuit of its Big Government objectives. The mandate overturned today would have required for-profit companies to choose between violating their constitutionally-protected faith or paying crippling fines, which would have forced them to lay off employees or close their doors.”

For now, the President, who’s been on the losing end of a number of major Supreme Court decisions, is resorting to a childish response, warning that he’ll try another end-run around the Court to get his way. “They’re acting like the town bully,” Cathy Ruse said. “‘Hey Mother Angelica, you don’t wanna provide free birth control pills to all of these people? Well, then, you pay us $100 every day for every person you refuse to supply… until you change your mind.’ There’s an easier way, and the Court gave them a map: If the White House wants to give free birth control and abortion drugs to every woman in America, they should pay for it, themselves.”

Of course, the irony in all this is that Democrats are suddenly jumping on the transparency bandwagon, which might be funny if it weren’t so offensive. Senate Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said yesterday that he would “I will introduce legislation that requires all corporations using this Supreme Court decision to deny or limit contraception services to disclose this policy to all employed and applicants for employment. Workers have a right to know if their employers are restricting the availability of a whole range of family planning coverage.” This from a party that created an ObamaCare “secrecy clause” to stop Americans from finding out whether their plans cover abortion!

If the President’s party is demanding clarity, we’re all for it. In the meantime, one thing is clear: the days of the HHS mandate may be numbered. In the last 24 hours, seven more religious institutions won emergency injunctions against the order (including EWTN and Wheaton College), setting up phase two of the mandate takedown. As dozens of nonprofits fight on, the Becket Fund predicted “the death knell is sounding for the HHS mandate.” Thank goodness. One vote the other way in the Supreme Court, and the death knell would have been for the First Amendment.

The Wait of the World Falls on Sudan
While Americans get ready to enjoy the long weekend, there’s one family overseas wishing they could join the 4th of July celebration here in the U.S. Meriam Ibrahim, her husband Daniel, and their two tiny children still wait in Khartoum for the green light to come to the states. Today, I again spoke with Sudanese officials, along with Members of Congress, and there is no substantial change in Meriam’s case. The fact that “administrative matters” continue to block her departure from Sudan is a reason for concern. The longer she’s detained in the country, the more dangerous it is for her and her family.

Knowing that she’s not yet left Sudan raises serious concerns about her safety and future fate. Please join me in lifting up Meriam, Daniel, Martin, and Maya in prayer — and continue to use your social media platforms to keep the pressure on U.S. officials to act. Meriam can’t afford for us to abandon her now!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 151 other followers