Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review enjoy watching Hillary Clinton get caught in another lie – this time it’s her assertion that all of her grandparents were immigrants. They also scold Jeb Bush for urging Senate Republicans to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. And they’re stunned by MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski and her deep confusion over the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek.
Former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik says politicians, civil rights leaders and the media need to stop crucifying police by presenting a few controversial encounters as part of some nationwide crisis and he says competent police work has saved countless black lives in New York City and beyond.
Kerik served as commissioner of the New York Police Department from 2000-2001 and led the department through the events of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the city. For 12 years prior to his appointment as commissioner, Kerik led the city’s Department of Correction. He later served time in federal prison for tax fraud and making false statements. Kerik is the author of the new book “From Jailer to Jailed: My Journey from Correction and Police Commissioner to Inmate #84888-054.”
In recent months, Kerik has been very critical of political leaders such as President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for what he sees as divisive rhetoric on race and the police. When two NYPD officers were murdered in December, Kerik suggested de Blasio had blood on his hands as a result of recent comments by the mayor.
From the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, to the Eric Garner controversy on Staten Island and beyond, Kerik believes prominent political and civil rights figures have only fanned the flames of division.
“We broad brush the cops as racist, as criminals. We crucify them in the court of public opinion and I just think it’s wrong,” said Kerik.
Kerik says the first thing people should realize is the immense volume of police work that occurs on a day to day basis.
“Local, state and federal law enforcement in this country probably effect more than two million arrests per year. Two million. In New York City alone, there’s more than 100,000 arrests per year,” he said.
The biggest problem he says is that too many people fail to look at each case on its own merits and instead start looking for some sort of narrative.
“We then take two, three, four incidents and we turn those into a broad brush of negativity toward the law enforcement community all over this country and it should not be,” said Kerik.
“Every one of these events should be looked at individually. First and foremost, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That goes on both sides of the coin, whether it’s the suspect or it’s a cop that’s involved in an incident,” he said.
Kerik also takes aim at politicians and civil rights figures, not only for failing to diffuse tense situations but to blatantly mislead the public about what is happening in the protests.
“I think it is the political leadership that incites these protests. People have talked about these protests. These are peaceful protests. Well, that’s not necessarily the case. Some of them are. Most of them have not been,” said Kerik.
He says protests in the wake of two high-profile cases are perfect examples.
“In Ferguson alone, they burned down half the community for God’s sake. That’s not a peaceful protest. Peaceful protests in New York City are not calling for cops to be killed,” said Kerik.
Kerik stresses that people have the right to assemble and speak their minds but elected and self-anointed leaders have a responsibility to maintain calm.
“People have a right to express their opinion, but when you have civil rights leaders and you have public officials that are supposed to be there to keep the peace, it’s just wrong for them to get out and incite these people. They’re really creating more havoc and more harm to communities than necessary,” said Kerik.
This week, Rep. Hank Johnson, R-Ga., took to the House floor to sound the alarm for what he sees as a pattern of police abuse and even murder toward black suspects.
“It feels like open season on black men in America and I am outraged. In fact, all Americans are at risk when bad actors in law enforcement use their guns instead of their heads,” said Johnson, who also submitted a list of 22 Americans who died in police encounters.
So is there a systemic problem of racial bias that is putting black lives in danger at the hands of police?
“I don’t think so.” said Kerik.
In fact, Kerik says competent police work radically reduced violence and murder in New York City.
“Look what law enforcement community has done for the minority communities in New York City. Back in 1990, there were more than 2,400 murders in New York City, most of them came from the minority communities. In the last 20-25 years, the NYPD has reduced overall violence by more than 75 percent and homicides by close to 80,” said Kerik.
He says the bottom line is that the lives of black New Yorkers are far better as a result of the NYPD.
“The predominant [beneficiaries] of those reductions in violence and murders have been the black communities. I think that’s completely ignored in this racial incitement, this racial argument that’s out there,” said Kerik.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are thrilled to see the Clinton campaign exposed for carefully choosing, screening and transporting the everyday Americans Hillary just happens to meet in Iowa. They also unload on the government for allowing the gyrocopter to fly to the Capitol unimpeded and on the media for largely ignoring the guy’s liberal motivation. And they debate whether Hillary Clinton should have tipped at the Ohio Chipotle.
Despite the international persona of a more moderate regime that the U.S. can negotiate with, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is killing political opponents at a faster rate than the previous leader and should not be trusted at all, according to the man who first warned the west about Iran’s current nuclear ambitions.
“Rouhani was supposed to be the more moderate version of the Iranian president. He has killed more people under his watch than was killed under (former President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad during the same period,” said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is the Iranian parliament in exile.
“Iran has the highest per capita executions in the world. It’s close to 1,400 people executed under Rouhani since he became president,” said Jafarzadeh.
Rouhani has been president since August 3, 2013. That calculates to more than 2.25 executions per day.
Jafarzadeh says while the United States and some of our allies may be convinced Rouhani is a different type of leader, the people of Iran know better.
“There has been no opening up of the society. All the promises that Rouhani has made have not materialized. All Rouhani has done in the past year and a half since he took office was negotiating on the nuclear issue, trying to get the sanctions lifted. That’s all he’s done,” said Jafarzadeh.
“In order to make up for the weaknesses of the regime and make sure that the population doesn’t stand up and raise their voice, Tehran has increased the level of repression and the killing,” he said.
Can Iran be trusted on any level to honor a nuclear agreement?
“Absolutely not,” said Jafarzadeh. “Look at the way they have handled the negotiations. They say one thing during the talks and when they get to Tehran they say something else. They can never be trusted, not just because of their nuclear behavior, but also in terms of their engagement in terrorism.”
However, he says Iran’s past conduct in misleading the world about it’s nuclear program is also instructive.
“Every single nuclear site of Iran has been exposed by the Iranian resistance, not by the Iranian regime. Tehran has been caught cheating continuously and consistently over the past 10-15 years when the inspections started in 2003, right after the revelation of the nuclear site in Natanz by the main opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran,” he said.
Jafarzadeh is also deeply concerned about reports this week revealing that Russia is now willing to sell missile systems to Iran, purportedly for defensive purposes. He says the change in policy not only adds a dangerous dimension to Iran’s military but give Russia more and more incentive to thwart efforts to keep the Iranian ambitions in check.
“The other problem is the more the Russians get invested in Iran, the more difficult it will become for them to vote against the Iranian regime’s violations in the future during the UN Security Council,” said Jafarzadeh.
The Iranian resistance is encouraged by this week’s Senate actions to give Congress a voice in determining whether Iran is actually adhering to any future nuclear deal and giving lawmakers the chance to bring back sanctions or keep them in place if Iran cheats on its commitments
“It was Congress from the beginning that understood the threat of the Iranian regime and the need to curb the threat and passed all the necessary legislation that led to sanctions. It was those sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table,” said Jafarzadeh, who says President Obama could use the legislation to press for greater demands from Tehran.
“If Congress doesn’t get involved, then the administration would be unilaterally in charge of the whole thing in dealing with Iran and knowing the Iranian regime’s track record and history of cheating and their willingness to defy, you always want that additional leverage,” he said.
Jafarzadeh says Obama would be wise to use the bill as a way to press the Iranians for snap inspections of nuclear facilities and other major concessions.
While the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the legislation unanimously and it appears likely to become law, some are still frustrated that lawmakers are effectively giving up their right to hold a vote on a treaty that would require a two-thirds majority to approve, whereas this bill would only require Obama to cobble together 34 votes to sustain his veto of any attempt to reinstate sanctions on a cheating Iran.
Jafarzadeh testified before the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. He says a full treaty vote would be ideal but he says the mood Tuesday on Capitol Hill suggests even this new legislation could be enough to handcuff Obama.
“What I saw yesterday, both among the Democrats and Republicans, what I saw in terms of the resolve and focus of Congress, I think the president may have a difficult time to even get those 34 votes,” said Jafarzadeh.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are glad to see Congress will get a vote on any Iran nuclear deal but it’s still a far cry from the power it should have. They also groan as President Obama moves to remove Cuba from the list of terrorism-sponsoring nations. And they slam Hillary Clinton for saying she wants “unaccountable money” out of politics while she’s busy raising a campaign war chest of $2.5 billion and accepted donations from foreign governments at the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State.
A former Clinton administration official calls the Obama administration approach to Iran “absurd” and believes the American people are being mislead on the framework of a deal, but he insists a Hillary Clinton presidency would chart a much different course on the threat of a nuclear Iran.
In the days since an announced framework for a nuclear deal, Iranian officials have worked nonstop to declare the U.S. appraisal of the deal a lie. Iran has disputed such key issues as when the sanctions would end, how many centrifuges would be allowed to keep spinning and even where enriched uranium would be stored.
Is one side actually telling the truth or are both governments actively spinning the details of the framework to win over their own people?
“I suspect it’s more of the latter. Let’s keep in mind that we’re talking about a framework as opposed to a deal itself. Both sides put off very crucial questions,” said Larry Haas, who served as communications director to then-Vice President Al Gore.
Given all the unresolved issues, Haas is not surprised that the two governments do no appear on the same page.
“I’m not terribly surprised that we are seeing different interpretations by the two sides. I think I am far more disturbed by the kind of rhetoric that’s coming out from the supreme leader of Iran, who at the end of the day will have the final say,” said Haas.
“He is now making demands for a final deal that if the Obama administration were to go along with them it would be akin to simply giving the Iranians a nuclear weapon,” he said.
In addition to the unresolved questions are the critical issues the United States says are no longer on the table: addressing Iranian actions and ambitions to dominate the region and working to free multiple Americans imprisoned there. The Obama administration says those are ancillary issues that do not need to be part of the nuclear discussions.
“That is precisely absurd to think that way,” said Haas, who says a nuclear Iran is a far different animal than a nuclear Great Britain, Israel, France or even Pakistan.
“Those governments are not radical in the way that the regime in Tehran is. It is precisely because Tehran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world, and precisely for the fact that it abuses the human rights of its own people and any other area that it dominates and precisely over the fact that it wants regional dominance that we fear what this regime will do if it has nuclear weapons,” said Haas.
Haas says these issues ought to be at the very heart of any negotiations with Iran. He says Iran’s success in getting them off the table means they’ve already won.
“The fact that we now view them as ancillary are all concessions to the Iranians. When these negotiations began, they were central to the negotiations themselves. We basically said this is part of an overall negotiation having to do with nuclear weapons and other issues that are troubling us, like the Iranian ballistic missile program, and terrorism, and regional dominance and all the rest,” said Haas.
He sums up the U.S. negotiating posture as “appeasing” and “self-defeating.”
Furthermore, Haas says recent American history proves the Obama administration is heading down the wrong road. In a recent piece for U.S. News and World Report, Haas says Obama is following in the misguided footsteps of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, who got policy toward the Soviet Union very wrong in the wake of the Vietnam War.
“Like President Obama, President Nixon essentially subscribed to the view that the United States could not be alone as the world’s major power center, that rather than fighting the Cold War, we ought to pursue detente, and a detente that would allow the United States to be perhaps the first among equals, but literally among equals,” said Haas.
Starting with President Reagan, Haas says presidents of both parties reverted back to the notion that a strong America is best for our nation and the world.
“We are a country that believes, and we have since World War II, that the world is a better place when the United States more than any other power calls the shots, ensures regional stability and keeps other players in line,” said Haas.
While Haas believes Bill Clinton ended up a strong president on foreign affairs, he believes Clinton dropped the ball in confronting North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. And he doesn’t believe Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have learned anything from that episode.
“I do think we’re heading down the same path, a path of too much trust for regime that I would argue is implacably anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-western, and that is the regime in Tehran. I do fear that we are making the same mistake,” said Haas.
Regardless of who becomes the next president, Haas expects American foreign policy to look more like it did prior to the Obama years.
“No matter what happens over the next year and a half, I do believe that the next president, whoever he or she is, will not continue this policy and will turn to a more traditional view of America’s role in the world,” said Haas.
Despite Hillary Clinton serving as Obama’s top diplomat for four years, he believes she would chart a far different course on Iran than her former boss although it might be hard to tell based on her campaign rhetoric.
“I think we would see a markedly different approach. She will not be able to say on the campaign trail precisely how much she would differ from President Obama because it would undercut her Democratic support. So it’s going to be very tricky for her,” said Haas.
When it comes to blame for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, Haas stresses that he sees Hillary’s tenure at the State Department as maintaining a tough posture towards Iran. However, he contends it all unraveled as Kerry took over.
“She really spent much more time beefing up the sanctions against Iran, which was precisely the right policy. It was really President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry who have pursued this policy of lifting the sanctions temporarily, negotiating a deal and making one concession after the next,” said Haas.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review cheer Marco Rubio for framing the 2016 campaign as one between the future and the past. They also fume over Russia agreeing to provide missile defense to Iran. And they try to figure our the point of Hillary Clinton’s road trip.
Saying he and his constituents are tired of presidents violating the Constitution to achieve their political goals, a Florida congressman is bringing forth legislation to define “high crimes and misdemeanors” and what actions ought to trigger impeachment proceedings.
“Every time we go back to the district and even before I ran, people said, ‘The three branches of government are out of balance. When is Congress going to stand up and have some accountability and rein in the power of the executive branch,'” said Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
The congressman says the thirst for power in the executive branch is a longstanding problem that’s only getting worse.
“The executive branch has been growing stronger and stronger over the past two or three decades but this administration with President Obama seems to be on steroids,” said Yoho, who says enough is enough.
“I think the last straw was on Nov. 20 with the executive order on amnesty overreach of the president. Over 30 times in a six-year period of time he said he did not have the authority to change the law on immigration, yet he went ahead and did,” said Yoho.
Federal District Court Judge John Hanen placed an injunction on the Obama orders and recently shot down an Obama administration attempt to activate the program while its constitutionality is sorted out elsewhere in the federal system.
Yoho says immigration is just one issue where the executive branch is aggressively challenging its constitutional limits.
“Pretty much every week we’re up here, we hear one of the legislators or the news talk about the constitutional crisis we’re facing. It’s in so many different areas, whether it’s religious freedoms or redefining marriage or trampling on states’ rights,” said Yoho.
“At some point we’ve got to draw that line that says from this point forward, all presidents, I don’t care if they’re Republican, Democrat, from the planet Mars. They’re going to be held to the confines of the Constitution,” he said.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Yoho is now seeking to define high crimes and misdemeanors. His legislation would include “failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement.” Another would be “substituting executive agreements for treaties.”
In addition, Yoho’s bill would also target presidents who start military action without receiving authorization from Congress, violate appropriations laws to force money towards their political priorities or defy congressional subpoenas for documents or testimony.
Yoho insists this is not designed to kickstart impeachment proceedings against President Obama, but he admits Obama’s actions are in many ways the inspiration for this.
“If we had a chief executive that would faithfully execute the laws…this wouldn’t be an issue and we could get on with America’s business,” said Yoho. “But when you have to play like a babysitter and say, ‘No you can’t do that’ over and over and over again, the American people are tired of it.”
“The beauty of this is that this is not attacking this president. It’s attacking this president and all future presidents,” he said.
Much like teams enter a sporting event by acknowledging the rules that guide the game, Yoho says it’s time for all political players to recognize and obey the Constitution as the rule book for our government.
“Unlike football, which is a game, you’re talking about the United States of America and preserving our Constitution so that we don’t have to talk about a constitutional crisis in the future,” he said.
Non-partisan critics may be quick to point out that America’s founders deliberately left “high crimes and misdemeanors” as vague so as not to dictate to all future leaders what constitutes an impeachable offense.
“The founders actually did make it very vague because if they said it’s based on incompetence or it’s based on ignorance; they started to play around with that but what they found is those are very loosely defined. So they allowed congresses to go ahead and define those in the future,” said Yoho.
And that’s what the congressman believes his bill does now. He believes support for his plan ought to be unanimous.
“There’s no reason for any representative of the American people, I don’t care what state or why party, Democrat or Republican, should shy away from this. This holds all presidents accountable,” he said.
Yoho says this warning also applies to any future Republican president who seeks to undo unpopular or unconstitutional actions of Obama through illegitimate means.
“If we got a Republican president in 2016 and they didn’t want to enforce parts of Obamacare…and they wave their pen and their phone and say, ‘Nope, we’re not going to do that.’ We have got to hold them accountable,” said Yoho.
In addition to Obama’s unilateral action on immigration, Yoho is very concerned about the president’s attempts to go it alone on a nuclear deal with Iran.
“Many of the legislators feel (his bill) is needed to resist an executive encroachment on their authority. I think what you’re seeing is a natural reaction to the president’s overreach in many areas and a desire for the Senate to re-assert it’s traditional and constitutional role,” said Yoho.
Yoho stressed once again that the legislation should not make any president nervous but that it gives them a clear guide as to which actions will not be tolerated.
“This is not about impeaching. This is about following the rule of law. This is a notice that says, ‘From this point forward, there will be no impeachment as long as you stay within these parameters,” he said.
Greg Corombos of Radio America and Andrew Johnson of National Review are eager to see how Florida Sen. Marco Rubio impacts the GOP presidential race. The groan as Hillary Clinton launches her 2016 campaign by pretending to care about the middle class. And they react to Democrats thinking the Rubio campaign begins and ends with his water grab during his State of the Union response.
A prominent Christian seminary professor says believers need to keep their chins up in the face of a culture that seems increasingly hostile to their beliefs and he urges the faithful to keep fighting for religious freedom while still evangelizing the lost.
Owen Strachan is an assistant professor of Christian theology and church history at Boyce College at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves at the school as chair of gospel and culture and as president of the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.
Strong religious liberty protections were modified in Indiana to the point where many faith leaders concluded the final law is worse than no bill at all. Legislation was also changed in Arkansas to accommodate political pressure on the governor from activists alleging that a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, discriminated against gays and lesbians.
In addition to those political fights, the Supreme Court will hear arguments later this month on whether states have right to define marriage for themselves and decide whether to acknowledge same-sex marriages in other states. Many court watchers expect the justices to side with same-sex marriage advocates in those cases.
But while the culture may be be shifting quickly against Christians, Strachan says this is the worst possible time for believers to give up hope or give up fighting.
“This is not the Fall. The fall of Adam and Eve happened thousands of years ago. This is not the one problem the church is facing that it cannot overcome. If you study Christian history, you see so many obstacles faced by Christians in the past,” said Strachan.
“So often, there’s this tendency, ‘Jesus must be coming because things are getting so bad.’ The reason that Christians have jumped to that conclusion is not simply because their theology is a little off. It’s because things have been so bad in their culture and society,” he said.
Strachan says it is precisely when the road gets difficult that Christians must stiffen their spines.
“We’re in that kind of moment and we’ve got to recognize that the Lord has placed us here to be gospel witnesses and to push for love of neighbor in the public square, to champion good policy even if we lose in big terms at the Supreme Court. So we’re going to keep on going. The band is not going to stop playing. It’s time to put your head down and keep going,” said Strachan.
While Christians may be seeing the most hostility in modern U.S. history, Strachan says even America’s relatively brief past shows amazing changes can happen.
“If you lived in the 1840s, 50s and 60s you would have thought that slavery would be a part of America forever. it can feel like America is sliding into the abyss and it will never recover, but look what happened. Through a great, fiery cataclysm, slavery was abolished in this country and the slave trade was ended,” said Strachan.
“I have hope. I believe in an awesome God, who does awesome and unexpected things. Even if things do darken in our country, I would tell Christians to stay at their posts, as Chuck Colson used to say, and keep working,” he said.
But with record numbers of Americans denying faith on God and resisting the church, should faithful Christians be focused primarily on evangelizing unbelievers than trying to improve society through public policy.
“I’m very greedy on this. I’m unwilling to choose one or the other and be forced to select only one entree culturally,” said Strachan, who sees no conflict in believers vigorously pursuing earthly and eternal goals.
“There is absolutely no divide between public square witness in policy work and evangelism. We must recognize that the gospel creates both of those instincts. The gospel creates an instinct to share the truth about Jesus Christ with unbelievers, absolutely. But the gospel also creates this love for justice and righteousness and this love for neighbor,” said Strachan.
That combination, he says, played key roles in two of the greatest changes in the American fabric.
“Christians in the 19th century evangelized. They planted churches and preached the gospel. But they also worked at the local, state and national level to advance anti-slavery legislation. And you know what happened? It worked in the end after a great war,” said Strachan, who says we saw a similar strategy play out in the middle of last century.
“The same thing happened in the mid-20th century with the civil rights movement. A lot of Christians who loved the gospel continued to preach the gospel but also fought in different ways and advocated in different ways for full racial equality,” he said.
Strachan is quick to admit the monumental cultural challenge facing the United States. He says we are watching in real time the fracturing of an uneasy truce that lasted for centuries.
“I think what we’ve seen in American history is a marriage of the First Great Awakening and the enlightenment.. So you have Thomas Jefferson at the same table as Jonathan Edwards. They’r effectively working together for common purposes. It appears today that the enlightenment, with it’s call for neutrality and liberty and freedom is triumphing over our religious heritage,” said Strachan.
“What that means today, specifically, is that what is called erotic liberty is beating religious liberty in the public square. Christians, in a pretty unusual way, are being targeted for their views and our religious liberty is very much imperiled in this day,” he said.
Strachan says for America to drift away from its commitment t religious liberty is to forget the basic roots of our great experiment.
“Religious liberty is what America’s founded on. It’s why the pilgrims and the Puritans came here. They were specifically not granted full-fledged religious liberty in the UK so they came to these shores so that they could worship according to their conscience,” said Strachan.
“It’s the freedom that grounds all the others. If you don’t have freedom to practice your religion to be sensitive to your conscience then what do other freedoms matter,” he said.
Because of that common heritage, Strachan says he is encouraged to see robust partnerships among Catholics and Protestants in fighting to preserve and strengthen religious liberties and other bedrock principles. He believes it’s a movement that every faith in America should join, while noting that common cause in policy does not erase foundational differences in the faiths.
“Christians should even be thinking about partnering with Muslims on this cause and Buddhists and others of different religions. It’s not because we don’t believe that our worldview differences are unimportant. We very much believe they are important and even eternally important. But we live here. We live in this country and we recognize that something is imperiled which threatens all of us,” said Strachan.
There have been countless religious freedom debates over the years and endless cultural debates as well. Why is the debate over homosexuality the pivot point for a confrontation over religious liberty?
Strachan says he has a strongly educated guess for why this appears to be coming to a head now.
“It’s because homosexuality is so closely tied to the body. Our identity is so derived from our body. I think that’s some of what is coming into play. People want to be able to do with their bodies as they see fit. So when others who are religious resist the full approval of same-sex marriage and transgender identity, we’ve recognized that this isn’t going to be a gentlemanly dispute,” said Strachan.
Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the marriage cases, meaning the court may impose same-sex marriage on all 50 states in just over two months. Strachan says the impact of that on our culture would be enormous.
“It’s going to very much change the nature of this country. We’ve just got to be honest about that. We’ve got to look it full in the face and say America is going to change. It’s going to mean that sexual immorality as defined by the Bible and as we would understand from natural design is going to be enshrined in law,” said Strachan.
“That’s going to mean that people are going to be shaped by these laws. Politics is going to influence culture as it always does. This is going to have very deleterious effects for American culture and society in general,” he said.
But as difficult as that cultural avalanche would be to faithful Christians, Strachan says it’s more important than ever to fight for what they know to be right.
“There’s a ton of ground left to be claimed in this cultural divide. We want to be very much plugged into upcoming elections. There’s all kinds of good measures that have taken hold in the pro-life realm and the marriage realm at the state level,” said Strachan.
“We don’t just want to look at one verdict from the Supreme Court, which will be huge. We don’t want to assume that that’s the only decision that has import for American public life. That’s frankly not the case,” he said.
