Archives for April 2015

A leading champion of traditional marriage is not only encouraged by Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the definition of marriage but is now confident the majority of justices will allow states to determine their own definitions of the institution.

In his latest syndicated column, Marriage Savers President Michael McManus says he was particularly encouraged by the apparent hesitation of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has historically sided with gay activists.  But on Tuesday, Kennedy expressed hesitation to redefine an institution that’s been in place for thousands of years.

“The word that keeps coming back to me is ‘millennia,’” said Kennedy early in the arguments.  “This definition has been with us for millennia. It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better.’”

“That’s an encouraging comment, I believe.  It shows you that there’s really a possibility that he might vote with the conservatives on this,” said McManus.

McManus says that point was later reinforced when Justice Antonin Scalia asked the attorney for the plaintiffs if she could name one place that gay marriage was legal before 2001.  She could not.

“This is an issue that’s brand new, relatively speaking.  It’s only been in place for ten years, and of the thirty-seven states where gay marriage is possible now, twenty-six of them did so only because of court orders, said McManus.

He says a court ruling in favor of traditional marriage would mean many of those states would revert back to their original laws and the vast majority of states would once again define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.

The only other member of the Supreme Court who might surprise some with his decision is Chief Justice John Roberts.  On Wednesday, the New York Times suggested that Roberts may vote to legalize same sex marriage nationwide because of a possible gender discrimination issue.

“I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve this case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

McManus says he’s not worried about Roberts.  He believes the chief justice made his true opinion known when he pointed out that Maine rejected gay marriage in 2009 but turned around and approved it in 2012.  He says Roberts’ own words tell the story that he prefers leaving the issue up to the states.

“If you prevail here there, will be no more debate.  Closing of debate can close minds and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted.  People feel very differently about something if they have the chance to vote on it than if it’s been imposed on them by the courts,” said McManus, quoting Roberts.

“So I thought that was a pretty clear indication he’s going to be on our side,” said McManus.

Earlier this week, Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan told us why he was pessimistic about the upcoming court ruling and that little to nothing should be read into the questions during oral arguments.

McManus is confident in the June ruling going his way because of the oral arguments that he sees as a very important in the final verdict.  But, curiously, he reached that conclusion while being less than impressed with John Bursch, the lead counsel for traditional marriage supporters.

“I think they matter a lot.  One of my concerns is that the people giving the conservative side of this issue weren’t very effective I didn’t think.  One of the most important points is that a child needs both a mother and a father.  Obviously, that’s not possible with gay marriages.  That point wasn’t made very well by our side,” said McManus.

There’s also a pile of research McManus cites about the well-being of kids raised in the home of their married, biological parents versus those raised by gay couples.  He cited a 2012 study by Mark Regnerus entitled “Social Science Research.”  According to Regnerus, children raised by gay couples are four times more likely to live on welfare and more than ten times more likely to touched inappropriately by a parent.

Another issue McManus wishes Bursch would have raised is the apparent lack of interest among many gays and lesbians to actually formalize their relationships.

“Gays are really not interested in marriage.  That’s not what you would think from all the press coverage of this issue,” he said.

His evidence is based on New York, which legalized gay nuptials in 2011.

“There have only been 12,000 same sex marriages.  In that state of nearly 20 million people, if 1.7 percent of the population is lesbian or gay, that would be over 330,000 people who could have married.  So less than 10 percent are really interested in marriage, a point that hasn’t been made by anyone as far as I know,” said McManus.

While McManus is expecting a favorable verdict in June, he is wholeheartedly endorsing the civil disobedience called for by faith leaders and some political figures to defy a ruling in the opposite direction.

“I agree.  I think we have to defy the court on this,” he said.  “It seems reasonable to me that the state should be able to decide for itself what marriage is.  I would urge defiance on the part of those in those thirty-odd states that have endorses traditional marriage.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review applaud the media for staying on the Clinton Foundation scandal and digging up even more damaging information.  They also rip the Obama administration for refusing even to condemn the Iranian seizure of a cargo ship from the Marshall Islands, which we are sworn to defend.  And they slam MSNBC’s Alex Wagner for saying President Obama is half white while discussing his use of the word “thug” and for trying to restrict free speech.

Honor violence is a “huge problem” in the United States and other western nations and President Obama needs to join the fight to put an end to it, according to prominent women’s rights activist Jasvinder Sanghera, who is a victim of honor violence herself.

Honor violence occurs when strict adherents to some faiths determine female family members have shamed them in various ways, ranging from an affinity for western clothes and culture to dating westerners and rejecting arranged marriage proposals.

The violence can range from murder to being disowned by one’s family.  The custom is more common in the Middle East and South Asia in connection with the tenets of Islam, Sikhism and other faiths.  But as those populations migrate into the western world, the scourge of honor violence comes with them.

“It’s a huge problem, certainly in the UK, certainly in America,” said Sanghera, who is also featured in the widely circulated film “Honor Diaries.”

She says there is a steep learning curve about honor violence in this country.

“Here in America, I’ve already met victim survivors who are saying that America is not accepting this as an issue.  The problem here is heavily effected by the fact that you’re not even looking at it.  There is no level of awareness or even an acceptance that this is an issue for American citizens, which it clearly is,” said Sanghera.

Sanghera was born into a Sikh family in Great Britain and watched as multiple sisters consented to arranged marriages without ever having met their prospective husbands.  One of them ultimately took her own life.

She chose a different course.

“I was fourteen years old when my mother sat me down and presented me a photograph of the man.   I was to learn I was promised from the age of eight.  I was the one who said, ‘No, I am not marrying a stranger.’  I was born in England.  I wanted to go to college,” said Sanghera.

Eventually, Sanghera’s family presented her with an ultimatum.

“I ran away from home at the age of 16 to make the point I was not marrying a stranger.  As a result of that, my family gave me two choices.  I either came back and married who they said or I was now dead in their eyes,” she said, noting that she remained firm in her refusal to enter the arranged marriage.

Since that time, Sanghera has become a very visible activist in Britain and has been able to help many others facing similar dilemmas.

“I launched a help line in 2008,” she said.  “Within the first four and a half years, we’ve dealt with 48,000 calls to the help line.  The majority are victim callers or repeat victim callers.  That’s because we’ve been raising awareness for the past 23 years.”

Her cause recently received a major shot in the arm from the British government.

“Our prime minister in England (David Cameron) has given full support for a day of remembrance to honor the victims who were murdered in dishonorable killings.  These victims are murdered by their family and being shamed for embracing everything that Britain stands for.  So we have to honor their memory and use this day as an opportunity to raise awareness,” said Sanghera.

Great Britain will hold it’s remembrance day on July 14.  Sanghera recently spent several days in the United States trying to raise awareness about honor violence and to convince President Obama to follow Prime Minister Cameron’s lead.

“We’ve launched a petition with “Honor Diaries,” petitioning the president to have the same day here in the USA.  You’ve got victims here.  I know of about 28 American citizens who have been murdered by family members.  Who is honoring them?” said Sanghera.

“This is an opportunity to dialogue and raise awareness.  It is not going to cost [Obama] any money.  We want his heart and mind on this issue.  All political parties should sign up for this as they did in the UK,” she said.

Whether or not, Obama calls for a day of remembrance for honor violence victims, Sanghera says the American people need to pay attention to a horror that may be happening in their own communities.  She says that extends to law enforcement and political figures who often look the other way out of deference to the beliefs and traditions of immigrant communities.

“Victims are let down by the fact we’re looked at differently.  We’re treated differently,” said Sanghera.  “We have to train police officers.  We are now training police officers in the UK.  Sadly, that isn’t the case here in the States.”

On the international stage, Sanghera endorses western governments demanding better treatment of women by governments in nations that endorse honor violence and using diplomatic and financial tools to do it.

“There’s more than enough reason to have that debate with those countries.  Otherwise, how are we going to shift attitudes,” she said.  “We need to ask them for their sense on this.  If it is not good enough, we need to get them uncomfortable and tell them this is out point of view.”

Sanghera eventually left Sikhism and is now a Christian.  She does not believe her faith makes her more or less passionate about the issue of honor violence, but she does believe it helped her deal with a painful personal history.

“I actually became an atheist and then later on in my own life I became a Christian.  It was a personal journey, a spiritual journey, and I had a lot of people to forgive.  That is a core part of my being now,” said Sanghera.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are cautiously cheering a better night in Baltimore, even as Geraldo makes a fool out of himself.  Jim unloads on President Obama for suggesting all of us have to do some soul-searching after the riots in Baltimore.  And we have fun with the news Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, will run for president as a Democrat.

Traditional marriage supporters and legal reporters suggest Tuesday’s oral arguments on the definition of marriage mean the Supreme Court could go either way on marriage, but a respected legal scholar says the track record of the justices shows the odds are still strongly with supporters of same sex marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as the key vote on this issue since five justices are needed for a majority and the four liberal justices are virtually certain to endorse gay marriage nationwide.  Kennedy has been reliably sympathetic to the arguments of gay activists in previous cases, as evidenced by his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down anti-sodomy laws in 2003 and his 2013 ruling in Windsor v. United States that overturned the federal government’s ban on same sex marriage.

On Tuesday, however, the justices heard arguments on whether states have the right to define marriage for themselves and whether states should be forced to recognize marriages legally performed in other states.  Observers noted Kennedy’s obvious reluctance to redefine the institution of marriage.

“The word that keeps coming back to me is ‘millennia,'” said Kennedy. “This definition has been with us for millennia. It’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh well, we know better.'”

Many traditional marriage activists see this legal battle as an uphill climb, especially just two years after Windsor.  But those words from Kennedy clearly raised their hopes.

“For months, we’ve endured a barrage of claims that it is “inevitable” that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling imposing same-sex ‘marriage’ on the entire nation. Yet today’s questioning from the justices themselves makes clear nothing is inevitable,” said National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown in a message to supporters.

Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ed Whelan is also an ardent defender of traditional marriage, but he is not expecting good news when the court renders its decision in June.

“I come out of oral argument with the same pessimistic view with which I went in.  When you look at Justice Kennedy’s record, what he’s written, what he’s done over the past twenty years, I think he is a very very likely vote to invent a constitutional right to same sex marriage,” said Whelan.

Whelan is also insistent that trying to determine the court’s decision based on oral arguments is a fool’s errand.

“I’m simply not going to assign much weight to any particular passage in the oral argument.  Anyone who’s attended these arguments knows that it’s a rather chaotic affair.  Justice Kennedy’s questions are sometimes coherent, sometimes not.  Same for the other justices,” said Whelan.

He says Kennedy’s concern over millennia of tradition may only be a smokescreen.

“I think he may have had an interest in appearing open-minded, to appear as though he hadn’t made up his mind, but I’m very skeptical,” he said.

Whelan says over 25 years of Kennedy votes and opinions tell him a lot more than one oral argument.

“I would assign far greater weight to what Justice Kennedy did two years ago in Windsor, far greater weight to the Supreme Court’s denial of review last October from the four courts of appeals that had struck down state marriage laws, far greater weight to the Supreme Court’s incomprehensible refusal to stay the district court ruling in Alabama,” said Whelan.

Whelan’s pessimism is not an admission that traditional marriage forces have the weaker legal argument.  On the contrary, he firmly believes the Constitution is on the side of the states.

“The Constitution clearly leaves the matter to democratic processes, but if you’re a living constitutionalist like Justice Kennedy who believes the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean, then you can make things up as you go along and no argument I’m going to make is going to have much of an impact,” said Whelan.

Same sex marriage advocates say their case is solidly backed up by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, which ensured the same rights to all Americans upon the abolition of slavery.  Whelan says that argument is far weaker than it seems.

“It’s far-fetched to read the 14th amendment to read that the very sort of laws that existed everywhere at the time that the 14th amendment was adopted and existed everywhere until 2003 are now to be deemed unconstitutional, even though no one thought that the 14th amendment had anything to do with altering the male-female definition of marriage,” said Whelan.

Another reason many traditional marriage supporters hold out hope for either a win or a more limited ruling at the Supreme Court is because the justices are reportedly wary of issuing another sweeping decision that may only further polarize the nation in the way that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision did on abortion.

Whelan says there’s no reason to think that will be a mitigating factor in this ruling.

“No, I think you have in Justice Kennedy and other justices a real extreme view of judicial power.  As Justice Kennedy said in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that ratified Roe two decades ago, he expects that the people acquiesce in whatever the court does.  So I put nothing beyond what Justice Kennedy and other members of this court might do,” he said.

As for the long-term view, Whelan says marriage is already in deep trouble thanks largely to the way heterosexuals have sullied the institution and triggered an out-of-wedlock birth rate of 40 percent and rising.  He says that is simply unsustainable.

“We’re transmitting the pathologies of out-of-wedlock birth from generation to generation in a way that will make it very difficult to sustain the sort of civilization we’re used to having,” said Whelan.

He says championing “a thriving marriage culture” is the way out of this mess but insists same sex marriage will only make that harder.

“I don’t see how we can do that if five justices on the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution renders irrational any connection between marriage and procreation,” said Whelan.

“If marriage is redefined away from its core mission, it’s going to perform that mission less well and the consequences will be severe,” he said.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review discuss the latest on the Baltimore riots.  They comment on the governor having to wait a long time for the mayor’s request to send in the National Guard.  They also shake their heads as Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Burke says the media mischaracterized her comments about leaving space for people to destroy.  And they defend the media against criticism from the Baltimore city council president that too much attention has been focused on the bad news related to the riots.

As the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether states have the right to define marriage as they see fit and whether to recognize same-sex marriage performed in other states, one congressman is looking to take the issue away from the courts.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, is sponsoring the “Restrain Judges on Marriage Act of 2015”.

“If my bill  becomes law, then the states will make the decision from that point forward on marriage.  Any enforcement funds would also be blocked.  In the end, state would decide what marriage is .  There’s only two questions: what is marriage and who’s going to decide?” asked King.

“Not nine judges, or more likely five of nine judges, but the people need to make a decision on marriage,” he said.

How would the bill accomplish this, given that many question whether the legislative branch can dictate what the judicial branch can and cannot review?  King believes the power is clear.

“My bill just utilizes the constitutional authority that’s drafted into the original version of the Constitution by our founding fathers that provides for Congress to determine the conditions by which the federal courts can hear a case,” said King.

Specifically, the “Restrain Judges of Marriage Act of 2015” would immediately remove any marriages cases from the federal court system, including cases already pending or any filed on or after the date the King bill would take effect.  It also withholds any taxpayer money for the federal government to deal with any such cases.

“All courts are created by the United States Congress, including the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is the only court required by the constitution.  The balance of the federal courts are created by Congress.  If they can be created by Congress, they can also be managed by Congress,” said King.

King cites Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution for the basis of his legislation.  The germane part reads:

“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

King says there is a difficult history of the federal courts trying to solve issues in a manner the public refuses to accept.  First and foremost on that list is the 1857 Dred Scott decision that determined Scott was someone’s property and the court ordered his return.  King says it took a bloody Civil War, a civil rights act of 1866 and two constitutional amendments to ensure that slavery was abolished and that blacks in America were entitled to all the rights and benefits of citizenship.

He says the 1973 decision legalizing abortion met with the same reaction.

“We also saw Roe v. Wade and what they did when they said abortion on demand is fine.  We’ve been fighting that now since 1973.  The court should not be making these big decisions.  They need to be decisions of the people.  That’s something we should know from history and something we should know from reading our Constitution,” said King.

He says the Supreme Court is precariously close to going down that same road.

“Why do we think we’re going to live under judge-made law when they do this to the institution of marriage, which is the essential unit, the building block of our society and has been for thousands of years.  To think that the arrogance of a court could rewrite that when the voice of the people could not?” said King.

King is ardently pro-traditional marriage but he says if same-sex marriage proponents used the system the right way, he have to grudgingly accept it just as he did in Iowa, but only after he personally sued the governor for doing it the wrong way.

“We had a situation in Iowa where there was a governor who thought he could legislate in a similar fashion.  I took him to court and sued him successfully and they vacated his executive order,” said King.

“About eight or nine years later, they elected different majorities in the house and senate and for governor.  They passed that through as a matter of law.  They never heard a word from me at that point because it was the decision of the duly elected representatives of the people,” he said.

The odds of King’s bill becoming law are not good.  The votes would almost certainly not be there to override a veto from President Obama.  Far before that, King admits there’s no guarantee Republican leaders will take up the bill.

GOP leaders have gone largely silent on the marriage debate since the polls have turned against traditional marriage supporters.  House Speaker John Boehner said the party would most likely not weigh in at all on the case currently before the Supreme Court.

But King says the public can make a big difference.

“I think leadership, if they hear enough requests from the public to push this thing, then they will.  The sheer force of logic doesn’t seem to have the same effect as I thought it did when I was a young, purely idealistic man.  It takes the force of politics as well,” said King.

 

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Ian Tuttle of National Review are pleased to see a charity watchdog group declare that the Clinton Foundation spends only nine percent of its income on aid.  They also rip the mayor of Baltimore for saying she instructed police to give rioters “space to destroy”.  And they unload on Hillary Clinton for saying religious beliefs have to change to improve abortion access.

The cultural battle over opening bathroom to people based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex has reached one of the largest school districts in the nation and is playing out just outside the nation’s capital.

The school board in Fairfax County, Virginia, is now considering a policy change to accommodate students and teachers who consider themselves transgendered.

“It’s a ludicrous request,” said Meeke Addison, director of Urban Family Talk, which is a division of the American Family Association.  The AFA sent out an action alert earlier this week to alert parents in Fairfax County of the possible change.

“This decision would effect from preschoolers right on up to senior year, kids during their formative years being exposed to what would be considered an alternative way of expressing yourself,” said Addison.

In addition to the transgender accommodations, the policy would also forbid parents in the district to opt their children out of complying with the rules.

“This ‘no opt out clause’ is incredibly disturbing,” said Addison.

“Do public teaching institutions have the right to usurp authority of parents and teach children things that will go counter to that household’s convictions.  Do they have the right to do that?  Wherever you fall on the transgender or homosexual debate, it doesn’t really matter.  The question is do public school systems have the right to usurp a parent’s authority?” asked Addison.

Addison says this type of “indoctrination” is not the point of public schools and her kids should not be pawns in a cultural agenda.

“I expect them to come home reciting their times tables.  I expect them to come home making their subjects and their verbs agree.  I do not expect them to come home telling me about their teacher or a classmate who wants to use the men’s bathroom because they decided they are not who they were originally created to be,” said Addison.

The issue grates at Addison on a moral level but especially irritates her as a black woman as she watches parallels made between this debate and the civil rights movement.

“As an African-American, so often when we get caught up in this discussion, we believe that we are talking about immutable characteristics, we are talking about the way a person was or was not born,” said Addison, who says race and sexual identity or orientation are not at all similar.

“Science shows we are not talking about immutable characteristics.  We are talking about choice.  When we begin to allow choice and preference to trump immutability, then we have a problem.  Not only do we have a slippery slope but I would say we don’t have a slope at all.  We’re just careening to destruction,” she said.

So how should school districts deal with students who sincerely struggle with their gender?  Addison says they should be treated with dignity, but so should every other student.

“Something like that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis with sensitivity to that child and sensitivity to that child’s parents.  But whatever sensitivity you extend to that child, whatever accommodations you make for that child should be made for all children,” said Addison.

Fairfax County is an increasingly liberal part of northern Virginia and it is yet to be seen how parents are coming down on the issue there.

Regardless of the political leanings of the district, Addison says all parents should be worried about this kind of proposal.

“For people who feel this is no big deal, the question is when will it become a big deal?  When it’s something you don’t like?  When it’ something that’s not part of your core convictions?” she asked.

Parents have already had one chance to address the issue with the Fairfax County School Board.  They have one more chance May 7.

Addison urges parents to fight all the way.

“I’m not ready to say let’s put the nail in the coffin for parental rights.  You have a right to parent your child and I’m not ready to give that up.  I’m not ready to call the fight over.  It’ll happen in Fairfax County.  It can happen in Lee County.  It can happen wherever you are in your school if parents do not stand up for their very basic right,” said Addison.

One the leading Republican women in Congress says Hillary Clinton’s record shows the former Secretary of State is not a champion of women’s issues and her indifference to women’s equality around the world and in her own office adds to Clinton’s trust deficit with all voters.

“There’s a lot of disparity in what she says and what she actually does,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.  “I think people want representatives that are going to be genuine and honest and they’re not seeing that play out with the Clintons.”

According to Blackburn, this week is indicative of what the country would get with Mrs. Clinton in the White House.  Multiple allegations have surfaced in the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer.  The most explosive accusation to date is that Clinton’s State Department approved the U.S. ceding 20 percent of its uranium reserves to Russia after a key player in the deal made a $2.35 million donation to the Clinton Foundation.

“One of the things that it speaks to is the crony capitalism that they practice and it also points at how this has made our world less safe,” said Blackburn.  “That is one of the things that concerns women the most is the security issues, whether it’s national security, job security (or) retirement security.”

While the Clinton campaign and the national media are focusing on the potential of Clinton to be the first female president, Blackburn says both women and men are plenty weary of the Clintons.

“The American people have great muscle memory when it comes to the Clintons.  Her actions and the revelations are reminding the people why they did not like having Bill and Hillary Clinton in the White House,” said Blackburn.

“The actions of crony capitalism, the lack of attention to security, the lack of attention to security of employees of the State Department has caused those issues to resurface and to be front and center.  It’s a problem for Hillary Clinton,” said Blackburn.

Blackburn is even challenging the very thesis of Clinton’s campaign.

In her tour of Iowa, Clinton repeatedly said her candidacy was a result of her lifelong commitment to fighting for women and families.  The congressman says Clinton’s record as Secretary of State tells a very different story when it comes to fighting for oppressed women around the world.

“She does not have a record of making this a priority issue.  When you look at the practices of some of these nations against women, the lack of freedom that they have and the abuse that some women suffer.  Hillary did not take that opportunity when she was given the opportunity to address those issues,” said Blackburn.

“She flew a lot of miles and she visited a lot of countries, but she did not address those issues,” she said.

Blackburn says Clinton’s lack of action on this issue is evident in another black eye for the Clinton Foundation.

“The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted money from countries that do not honor the rights of women,” she said.

Diplomacy can be a delicate game.  Saudi Arabia, for example, has a very poor track record on women’s rights but is a strategic partner of the U.S. in terms of oil and in trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Nonetheless, Blackburn says there are a number of things Clinton could have done to show the issue was a priority in our dealings with Iraq.

“Number one would have been to continue the outreach that the State Department started after the Gulf War,” she said.

Blackburn herself traveled to Mosul in 2003 to promote educational opportunities for women and to encourage women and girls to take advantage of schooling.

“Wouldn’t it have been great for Hillary to have made that a priority.  Also, pushing forward having women elected into their parliament and bringing those opportunities forward for those women.  Those are things she could have done, ought to have done but chose not to do,” said Blackburn.

In contrast to the concerns of women around the world, Blackburn says Hillary also neglected to act to help the women who surrounded her on a daily basis.  Far from the equal pay demands that Clinton champions on the campaign trail, Blackburn says the secretary’s track record is pretty dismal.

“When you look at positions, males and females in the same job, that have been in her employ in the Senate and in the State Department, the females with the same qualifications at the same grade level were lower in that range than the men,” she said.

One advantage Clinton may have in her campaign is the allegation that criticisms against her from male candidates constitute a form of sexism and that a female candidate like Carly Fiorina may be the only one who can attack Clinton with full force.

Blackburn disagrees.  She says Clinton is fair game for everyone, but urges all GOP hopefuls to stick to the facts.

“Instead of personalizing it, you look at her record.  We’ve talked about her record at the State Department.  We’ve talked about her record as a U.S. senator.  What did she accomplish?  She was a big earmarker for the state of New York.  So her record is all you need to talk about,” said Blackburn.

Blackburn has not endorsed any Republican candidate for president and says it is unlikely she will do so prior to the nominee being determined.  However, she is excited about the GOP field and what the candidates bring to the race.

“We’ve got a deep bench and a lot of great candidates that are out there.  The fact that we do have thinkers out there from every different corner of our party shows the Republican Party is a big tent,” said Blackburn.

“We are going to be focused on the security issues.  We fully realize that the American people are saying, ‘Look, the campaign is not about the candidates.  It is about us, the individuals, the American people,” she said.