Month Archives: January 2013

Will Boys Scouts Flip-Flop on Homosexuality Policy—After Only Six Months?

by Peter Sprigg

January 31, 2013

News reports indicate that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may be on the verge of dropping their longstanding national policy forbidding open homosexuals from serving as Scout leaders or Scouts.

What many people may not realize, or may have forgotten, is that not only were the current membership standards upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court in 2000—they were also upheld by the Boy Scouts national leadership only six months ago.

However, I have discovered that the press release the Scouts issued at the time is no longer available on their website. Although the decision to maintain their policy was widely reported at the time, I thought it would be useful to reprint here the full text of the press release now missing from the BSA website:

After Two-Year Evaluation, Boy Scouts of America Affirms Membership Standards and Announces No Change in Policy

Organization to Take No Further Action on Resolution Requesting Revision of Policy

July 17, 2012

http://www.scouting.org/Media/PressReleases/2012/20120717.aspx [no longer active as ofJanuary 31, 2013]

IRVING,TEXAS — After careful consideration of a resolution asking the Boy Scouts of America to reconsider its longstanding membership standards policy, today the organization affirmed its current policy, stating that it remains in the best interest of Scouting and that there will be no further action taken on the resolution.

This decision follows a nearly two-year-long examination, started in 2010, of the policy commissioned by the Chief Scout Executive and national president. Under their leadership, the BSA convened a special committee of volunteers and professional leaders to evaluate whether the policy continued to be in the best interest of the organization.

The committee included a diversity of perspectives and opinions. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations — both from within Scouting and from outside the organization. The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth.

The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting,” said Bob Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America. “While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

Following the recommendation to affirm the BSA’s membership policy, the executive committee of the BSA National Executive Board released the following statement: “Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting. While not all Board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization and supports it for the BSA.”

Resolutions asking the BSA both to affirm and reconsider this policy have been raised throughout the years. With any resolution, regardless of subject, the BSA may or may not refer it to a committee for review or may immediately determine no further action is necessary. 

About the Boy Scouts of America

The Boy Scouts of America provides the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training, which helps young people be “Prepared. For Life.™” The Scouting organization is composed of 2.7 million youth members between the ages of 7 and 21 and more than a million volunteers in local councils throughout the United Statesand its territories. For more information on the Boy Scouts of America, please visit www.scouting.org.

###

FRC in the News: January 31, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

January 31, 2013

Rob Schwarzwalder Speaks Out on Boy Scout Issue

FRC’s Senior Vice President, Rob Schwarzwalder, was recently interviewed on Fox News  about the possible Boy Scout policy change that would go against the BSA’s “scout honor.” The Boy Scouts of America announced in July that after a 2-year study they would keep the current policy, one they’ve had since the beginning. Yet, they once again are being pressured to reconsider their decision.  

FRC Files Amicus Briefs for the Upcoming Supreme Court Cases on Marriage

As seen in the Herald Online Article, FRC filed amicus briefs to oppose previous court decisions regarding marriage. Hollingsworth v, Perry (California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act) will be presented to the Supreme Court in about a month. Tony Perkins stated that:

“The health of our nation’s families determines the strength of our nation. Redefining marriage only undermines the societal purpose of marriage which has always been to build healthy families and provide children with both a mom and a dad. The Supreme Court must strike down the lower court decisions against the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8.”

FRC Event on Human Slavery Teaches Justice

The recent FRC event entitled Human Trafficking: Modern Slavery was highlighted in an article featured in Juicy Ecumenism. The event featured the Honorable Linda Smith, founder and president of Shared Hope International, and Mark Blackwell, who is the founder and president of Justice Ministries. They spoke about the horrific injustice of human trafficking that takes place here in the U.S. and called the church to action. As Blackwell stated, “Jesus is the author of abolition and if he is not included in this fight there is no hope.”

The Social Conservative Review: January 31, 2013

by Krystle Gabele

January 31, 2013

Click here to subscribe to the Social Conservative Review.


Dear Friends:

As the proud father of two Boy Scouts, this week’s news of Scouting’s apparent decision to allow each Troop to determine its own policy on admitting is dismaying.

Boys should not forcibly be introduced to controversial issues of sexuality. The Boy Scouts, grounded in Judeo-Christian moral teaching, have always argued that the only sexually intimate behavior honoring to God (yes, Scouts still take an oath to “God and country,” and mean it) exists between a man and a woman within marriage.

We now know the names of nearly 2,000 men who preyed on boys and teens from 1971 through 1991. Are all homosexuals predators? Of course not. But have predation and molestation in the Scouts been homosexual? Read the names: Undeniably and tragically, yes. This should give any parent pause.

Scouting has, in recent years, adopted rigorous policies to protect boys from these things on theological, practical and moral grounds. Scouting has long professed faith in absolute truth and unchanging moral values. Must we now ask if the pledge to remain “morally straight” and “reverent” still means anything?

Like every father, I want my sons to be around men whose character is above reproach and who model biblical moral virtues. The fathers in our troop do this. May God forbid that it should change.

On my honor,

Rob Schwarzwalder
Senior Vice-President
Family Research Council

P.S. Six women leaders have contributed to FRC’s latest publication, Forty Years After Roe v. Wade. You can download it, at no charge, here.


Educational Freedom and Reform
Homeschooling

Legislation and Policy Proposals

College Debt

Government Reform
Regulation

Waste/Fraud/Abuse

Health Care
Abstinence

Health care reform: Political and Legislative efforts

Homosexuality

Human Life and Bioethics
Abortion

Check out FRC’s new resource, One Life, which is a one-stop shop for pro-life news.

Bioethics and Biotechnology

Euthanasia and End of Life Issues

Stem Cell Research
To read about the latest advances in ethical adult stem cell research, keep up with leading-edge reports from FRC’s Dr. David Prentice, click here.

Human Trafficking

Marriage and Family
Adoption

Family Economics

Family Structure

Media
Pornography

Internet

Religion and Public Policy
Religious Liberty

Religion in America
Check out Dr. Kenyn Cureton’s feature on Watchmen Pastors called “The Lost Episodes,” featuring how religion has had an impact on our Founding Fathers.

Secularism

International
Israel

International Economy and Family

Religious Persecution

Sharia law — U.S., foreign

The Courts
Constitutional Issues

Judicial Activism

Other News of Note

Book reviews

Ai WeiWei in D.C. and Chen Guangcheng Interview

by Chris Gacek

January 30, 2013

Earlier this week, I wrote about a recent FRC event discussing China’s forced population control policies. This weekend, CBS’s news program, “Sunday Morning” carried a feature on the world-famous Chinese dissident and artist Ai WeiWei. The story focused on an exhibit, running until February 24, at the Smithsonian Institution’s Hirshhorn Museum in Washington, D.C.

In October 2012, the British magazine, the New Statesman, published an edition edited by Ai WeiWei containing numerous interviews. The Mandarin edition is available in PDF here. This edition contains an interview of the blind anti-one-child policy activist, Chen Guangcheng, by Ai WeiWei. An English translation of the Ai WeiWei-Chen Guangcheng conversation may be found here. Mr. Chen and his family fled China in May 2012 and now live in New York City.

It is a very powerful interview, here is one paragraph:

Ai Weiwei: You understand the issues surroun­ding the one-child policy and have participated in relevant work on this topic. Could you discuss your views on it?

Chen Guangcheng: Human life is of paramount importance to the traditional morals of Chinese culture. This concept has been trampled on by uncivilised policies and behaviour – including forced abortions – to the point of complete devastation. After decades of violent abortions, people have lost almost all respect and regard for life. It isn’t just ordinary parents who are affected by the one-child policy: friends, relatives and neighbours can also be implicated. And an inevitable result is an ageing society. But the most detrimental effect of the policy is the destruction of the value of life.

Later in the article there is this stunning, illuminating exchange:

Ai Weiwei: There is a huge industrial chain – every area has a family planning office and a control department. The system is a massive employer.

Chen Guangcheng: Yes. And it’s not just about employment: there are wider economic interests as well. There were 130,000 forced sterilisations and abortions. This has created an industry, the income from which is extremely high. Over 60 million people are affected by this policy – your neighbours, for example. If you have violated family planning and become pregnant and they cannot find you, your neighbours in a 50-metre radius will be arrested. In other words, they will use your house as the centre of a 50-metre circle, arresting at least five other households.

If you count the four directions from the house, at least 20 families will be affected. They will arrest one person from each family and lock them away to “study”. Every day, they have to pay 200 yuan as their tuition fee and they will be beaten once in the morning and once at night. Therefore, people do whatever they can to find the pregnant woman. Because the families are worried, they call on their relatives to bribe the officials to release the person arrested. They pay between 3,000 and 5,000 yuan. After they hand over the money, the officials think of a way to send the person home but they can still be rearrested after three to five days. And then they have to pay again to get the person rereleased. There won’t even be a receipt. That’s a tremendous amount of income. If you cut off the revenue stream of these family planning officials, of course they will be angry.

I have to admit that I have never heard this before. Well, let’s all enjoy our cheap Chinese imports,America.

Happy Birthday, Pride and Prejudice!

by Jessica Prol

January 30, 2013

As dedicated fans will know, Pride and Prejudice turned 200 years old on Monday, January 28.

ABC’s Diane Sawyer’s opened her anniversary segment noting that Pride and Prejudice is “book that cracked a vital code—the eternal secret of how a man can be irresistible to a woman.” ABC gives us a brief history of the book and montage of its popular iterations over the past 200 years. But while leading man, Mr. Darcy certainly is “the thinking woman’s heart-throb,” he’s more than a romance icon.

A few years ago, my friend Brian Brown noted some the reasons in a post titled, “Why Men Like Jane Austen.”

This is the Austen hero. Chesterton observed, “When Darcy, in finally confessing his faults, says ‘I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice though not in theory,’ he gets nearer to a complete confession of the intelligent male than ever was even hinted by the Byronic lapses of the Brontes’ heroes or the elaborate exculpations of George Eliot’s.” This kind of self-aware yet self-confident manhood does not impress in the way that a quick wit or a quick sword does. Rather, it inspires respect—something we too often do not know how to gain, because for the Austen hero, “manly” is not something he does, like rescuing a damsel in distress; it is something he is. There is an integrity to him that transcends situation.

Today, such integrity and selflessness still merit respect and admiration. That’s what most (if not all) single ladies hope for in a spouse.

But for anyone who’s not convinced that such Austenesque virtues are timeless, I offer you a brassy and boisterous reminder that marriage “still works.” The recently married young commentator Steven Crowder opined on the topic, over the weekend. His post, “A man’s top 5 reasons to grow up and get married” is worth the read. It’s not aimed towards the marriage-minded single, and could be frustrating for anyone fruitlessly pursuing marriage. But it’s a bold wake-up call aimed at the loafing bachelor who thinks marriage is out-dated.

So, gentlemen, skim Crowder’s “Top 5 Reasons” and then grab a copy of Pride and Prejudice. The cultural milieu has altered. But there are still Mr. Darcy’s and Elizabeth Bennett’s to be matched.

FRC in the News: January 30, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

January 30, 2013

Anna Higgins Defends Life in North Dakota Senate

Anna Higgins, Director, Center for Human Dignity at FRC, testified before the North Dakota Senate concerning Senate Concurrent Resolution 4009. The resolution will amend the North Dakota Constitution by adding “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized must be recognized and defended.” Read some of Anna’s statement, Senate Concurrent Resolution 4009, and more about the hearing  here.

FRC Stands for Boy Scouts Morality

Recently, the Boy Scouts of America have considered ending its ban on allowing homosexuals to serve as leaders. FRC is choosing to stand for the code that the Boy Scouts have held for about a century:

“On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.”

Rob Schwarzwalder, FRC’s Senior Vice President, and Tony Perkins, have strongly supported the morality of the Boy Scouts and released a statement to show their strong concern over the possible changes.

Ken Blackwell Applauds Loyalty to Life

Ken Blackwell’s article, which was featured in World Magazine, commends Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) for standing up for life in the House of Representatives even though his party typically does not. Rep. Lipinski addressed the attendees of the March for Life via video and encouraged the enormous crowd to stand for human life. Rep. Lipinski believes that life is a bipartisan issue and those who stand for the unborn are thankful for his leadership!

College Gone Wild: Classes on How to Achieve Orgasm, Yet Neglects Abstinence

by Krystle Gabele

January 29, 2013

Every year, the Young America’s Foundation releases a list of outrageous course offerings at various colleges and universities across the country.  Aside from the courses that a student might take, they are also exposed to campus wide events that may stand contradictory to morals and have nothing to do with the reason why they are there in the first place:  To learn and gain the skill set necessary for their future.

Case in point, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is having an event, and this is one that will no doubt raise some eyebrows.  In April, students at this public university will have the opportunity to attend an event about the female orgasm (no, I am not making this up) from two sex educators.  This event is open to both genders, and while the goal of the class is to educate students to use the skills learned in a current relationship or for marriage, it is no doubt sending the wrong message.

Despite the disclaimer that they are trying to empower women, they are denigrating women by merely making them a sex symbol.  While they claim that the information from this lecture can be used in current relationships and in the future for marriage, there is no educating students about respecting women and the choices of abstinence.

Abstinence is not a dirty word, and in fact, it is time for academics to take some time to examine this, rather than orgasms.  FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) has released several studies that show that married couples have more satisfying sex than those who are unmarried.  There are also more benefits to being abstinent, as it cuts down on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), depression rates are lower in those who are abstinent, and the abortion rate decreases.

While college is for learning, it is a time to expand your horizons towards more academic approaches, like reading the classics, gaining experience in your major through internships and lectures, and debating the merits of studies.  It is definitely not a time to learn about orgasms.  Save that for marriage.

Star-Spangled Compromise

by Robert Morrison

January 29, 2013

And another thing, I didn’t like Beyoncé’s performance of the National Anthem. I don’t mean to get into the controversy over whether or not she should have lip-synched The Star-Spangled Banner. I think it would probably be okay to do that for purposes of amplification. After all, the million plus folks who came to witness the Inauguration last week ought at least to be able to hear the ceremonies.

It’s not because I don’t think Beyoncé is beautiful or that I don’t think she has a lovely voice. She is and she does. What I didn’t like was turning the National Anthem into a blues ballad. It ain’t that.

There is a traditional way to sing the Star-Spangled Banner. It doesn’t take long to listen to it. There’s a perfectly fine rendition of it online. Metropolitan Opera baritone Robert Merrill does a fine job with the U.S. Air Force Band.

The enthusiastic audience reception for Mr. Merrill and the band probably include hundreds of Americans who know that the anthem is supposed to be sung as “a sprightly martial air.” If we cannot hear our National Anthem properly sung at a presidential inauguration, for Heaven’s sake, where can we hear it?

It would have been especially nice to have the traditional National Anthem because we are approaching the bicentennial of the poem written by Francis Scott Key. The young Maryland lawyer was on board a British warship, trying to negotiate the release of an American prisoner, during the August, 1814 bombardment of Fort McHenry. The British war fleet was trying to reduce the fort to complete their invasion ofMarylandby taking the important port city of Baltimore.

In the rear of those British forces that grim summer lay the nation’s capital. The invaders had staged a quick short but destructive raid on Washington City. They torched the White House, the Capitol, and even the Library of Congress. British soldiers ate President Madison’s dinner in the Executive Mansion before setting it ablaze. First Lady Dolley Madison had raced to save the large Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington that again hangs on the wall. Only a hurricane force storm had quenched those flames.

I would love to hear that anthem sung as it should be sung. And perhaps at the next presidential inauguration, we might even hear this verse:

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand?

Between their loved home and the war’s desolation;

Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land

Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

The no-God-here crowd wouldn’t like it, of course. But they don’t like the president putting his hand on the Bible, having the Bible in plain sight, hearing “…so help me God,” or anything else most Americans want to hear at this solemnizing event. We need to remind these atheizers that it’s a swearing-in, not a swearing-at.

Here’s a Star-Spangled Compromise: Let’s ask inaugural organizers for the January 20, 2017ceremonies to invite Beyoncé back. Only this time, ask her to sing Ray Charles’s version of America the Beautiful.

That great song is not our national anthem, but it’s a national treasure. And no one did it better than the inimitable Ray Charles. Just thinking of that scene –January 20, 2017 – gives me a warm glow. I can’t wait.

Change Watch: John Kerry, Secretary of State

by Family Research Council

January 29, 2013

POSITION: Secretary of State

NOMINEE: John Kerry

Born: Aurora, Colorado, December 11, 1943.

Family: Second wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, two daughters and three stepsons.

Occupation: Lt. Governor of MA 1982-1985; Senate 1985-present. Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 2009-present.

Education: Yale University (1966) and Boston College Law School.


SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE

On Roe v. Wade and promoting abortion

Kerry: “I respect their views [Catholic Bishops]. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views, but I disagree with them, as do many. I believe that I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith. I believe that choice, a woman’s choice is between a woman, God and her doctor. And that’s why I support that. Now I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he’s tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not. I will defend the right of Roe v. Wade.” Source: New York Times, Third Bush-Kerry Debate Transcript Oct. 13, 2004.

Supports using federal taxpayer money to pay for abortion

Q: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

Kerry: “I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now. First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic… But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise. That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for theUnited States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.” Source: Washington Post, Second Bush-Kerry Debate Transcript Oct. 8, 2004.

Rights of Conscience

Voted against the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act that would have protected employers’ rights of conscience from the HHS mandate.

On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Blunt Amdt. No. 1520 to S.Amdt.1730), Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, Roll Call 24, March 1, 2012. Source: Senate.gov

Parental Consent on issues of abortion

Voted against stopping ne’er-do-well adults taking minors across state lines for an abortion: S.Amdt 4335 to S.Con.Res. 70, Roll Call 08-S71, March 13, 2008. Source: Senate.gov

Voted against parental notification of minors who get out-of-state abortions: S.403, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, Roll Call 06-216, July 25, 2006. Source: Senate.gov

On taxpayer funding of abortion

Voted for increasing taxpayer funding for destructive embryonic stem cell experimentation:  S.5/H.R. 3, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, Roll Call 07-127, April 11, 2007. Source Senate.gov

Voted for increasing funding to Planned Parenthood and similar clinics by $100 million:  S.Amdt. 244 to S.Con.Res 18, Appropriation to expand access to preventive health care services, Roll Call 05-75, March 17, 2005. Source: Senate.gov

Supports subsidizing international abortion agencies

S.Amdt. 2719 to H.R. 2764, Roll Call 07-319, September 6, 2007. Source: Senate.gov

Supports full funding for the United Nations Family Planning Fund (UNFPA)

(Evidence shows UNFPA subsidizes coercive abortions)

S. Amdt. 2708 to H.R. 2764, Roll Call 07-320, September 6, 2007. Source: Senate.gov

MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

Voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment: S.J.Res. 1, Roll Call 06-163, June 7, 2006. Source: Senate.gov

Opposes the Defense of Marriage Act:

Kerry: “My vote against [DOMA] — which some predicted would cost me reelection in 1996 — is among my proudest votes as a United States Senator…But my job in 2011 isn’t to feel good about my vote — or to boast that fifteen years later, I’m vindicated when at last an American president now agrees that DOMA is unconstitutional.” Source: Boston Globe 

Voted in favor of the Federal Hate Crimes Act: 

Thought crimes amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization that would establish federal “hate crimes” for certain violent acts based on the actual or perceived race, religion, disability, gender identity or sexual orientation of any person. S. Amdt. 3035, Roll Call No. 07-350, September 27, 2007. Source: Senate.gov

Supports special rights for homosexuals

Kerry co-sponsored S.811 the so-called “Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2011.” Source: Govtrack.us

Supports legislation that results in the shutting of Christian adoption agencies

Kerry co-sponsored S. 1770 in the 112th Congress which seeks to change the parameters of adoption placement so that agencies that continue to prioritize homes with a mother and father would be forced to close Source: Thomas

Supports redefining marriage and removing the ability of states to protect from redefinitions

Kerry co-sponsored S. 598 in the 112th Congress which seeks to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and redefine “spouse” for federal purposes. Source: Thomas

MISCELLANEOUS

Kerry’s Top Ten Flip-Flops: Senate’s role in Iraq war, wartime funding, Israeli security fence, the Patriot Act, death penalty for terrorists, releasing strategic oil reserves, affirmative action, free trade, and No Child Left Behind. Source: CBS News

Kerry Insults U.S. Troops: Kerry told a California audience on Monday: “Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” Source: Washington Post

Divisive Among Veterans: Following his service in Vietnam, John Kerry helped lead the controversial anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a group that condemned America’s conduct in Indochina and who was seen by some veterans as serving pro-Viet Cong interests. According to FBI accounts, Kerry was present at a 1971 VVAW meeting in Kansas City where the assassination of politicians was discussed.

Source: Washington Post, also WorldNetDaily

FRC in the News: January 29, 2013

by Nicole Hudgens

January 29, 2013

Robert Morrison Highlights Media Deception

The issue of life is certainly one of upmost importance, but if the media is known to paint pictures in their own light, we need to ensure that the public sees the entire picture—and in the correct lighting. FRC’s Senior Fellow, Robert Morrison, highlights the deception in media regarding the pro-life movement and reminds readers how to defend the stance of life in his article featured in National Review.

Lt. General Boykin on Fox News Regarding Women in Combat

Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret.-USA), Executive Vice President at FRC, was recently interviewed on Fox News Sunday to discuss women in combat and the issues that should be addressed after the recent announcement of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allow women to be on the frontlines. Watch the General’s interview here.

Tony Perkins Speaks Out Concerning Possible Policy Reconsideration for Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts of America have a decades-old policy that does not allow homosexual behavior. Recently, they have decided to possibly reconsider this policy under pressure. Tony Perkins comments in USA Today saying that the possible reconsideration is “a serious mistake.”

Ken Klukowski’s Addresses Second Amendment Issues

Ken Klukowski, Director, Center for Religious Liberty at FRC, writes about how former mayor of Cincinnati, Ken Blackwell (who now serves as Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at FRC), views the importance of our Second Amendment rights and how to fight the trending, yet dangerous policies from the White House limiting the freedom to bear arms. This article also detailed how this battle will be in the spotlight leading up to the 2016 elections. Read Klukowski’s article featured on Breit Bart’s website here.

December 2012 «

» February 2013

Archives