Ignore the Scam: Planned Parenthood No Supporter of African-Americans

Plenty of movements have tried to hitch their wagon to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. For years, people across the political spectrum have claimed him as one of their own—in part because it’s convenient and in part because he isn’t here to dispute it.

But no cause is more antithetical to King’s than Planned Parenthood’s. And yesterday, when the group founded by an open racist tried to suggest otherwise, we weren’t the only ones who noticed.

People across the social media spectrum lashed out at Cecile Richards’ group for daring to suggest that it is carrying on King’s vision. The idea that King would have stood by—let alone embraced—Margaret Sanger’s legacy is outrageous.

Yet still, Planned Parenthood had the audacity to tweet: “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to the idea that racial and economic justice are foundational to our democracy. Today we honor his courageous vision and radical action—and commit to furthering his dream by continuing the fight for justice.”

If you know anything about Planned Parenthood, you know that it was built on the back of Sanger’s eugenics. Years later, her legacy lives on in the group’s business model, which intentionally preys on minority women. How do we know that? Simple: The majority of Planned Parenthood’s facilities have been built in urban areas within walking distance of African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods. And that’s no coincidence.

Richards knows better than anyone that black babies are aborted at a rate five times higher than white babies. So while she likes to say “black lives matter,” she’s not telling the whole story. They matter because it’s a part of her business model.

Despite making up just 13 percent of the U.S. population, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2016 report points out, black babies made up a whopping 35 percent of the total abortions reported in 2013. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, the group that profits most from that statistic, continues its scam as a defender of African-Americans.

“Please tell us more about how you’re honoring his courageous vision,” one of many pro-lifers fired back. “Are you going to plant yet [another] abortion clinic in a black neighborhood or something?” Alexandra DeSanctis piled on. “Your group was founded by a eugenics enthusiast who peddled birth control in black and impoverished neighborhoods. Today, more black babies are aborted than born alive in NYC, your headquarters. You have no business coopting MLK to push your propaganda.”

DeSanctis is right. With just a 40 percent survival rate, the womb is one of the most dangerous places for New York City’s African-Americans. Yet Planned Parenthood will cover up that statistic with the same proficiency that it’s covered up years of abuse, organ trafficking, partial-birth abortions, fraud, and countless other crimes against humanity.

The only connection Richards’ group has to MLK is its butchering of the basic civil rights for which King died. “It’s not so much about labels—liberal, conservative, and all of that,” his niece Alveda King has said. “But he was someone who lived and gave his life to help all humanity. And so that definitely would include conception until natural death.”

As she told reporters last December, “Martin Luther King Jr. never accepted the agenda of Planned Parenthood. They lie … They put their abortion mills on or near streets that are named after Martin Luther King, and they want to attach that to the civil rights movement of the 20th century—but it doesn’t belong.”

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Ignore the Scam: Planned Parenthood No Supporter of African-Americans appeared first on The Daily Signal.

North Korea, Afghanistan Top List of Dangerous Places to Be Christian

As if North Korea weren’t taking up enough headlines, Open Doors USA just added another one: Kim Jong Un’s country is topping the list of the world’s “Most Dangerous Places to Be a Christian.”

Of course, the distinction is nothing new for the regime, which has owned the No. 1 spot for the last 15 years. “Nearly one of every 12 Christians in the world today lives in an area, or in a culture, in which Christianity is illegal, forbidden, or punished,” Open Doors President David Curry explained. In North Korea, where 50,000 people are suffering in prison or labor camps for their faith, few are surprised.

What is surprising, experts say, is the alarming new trend in places like Afghanistan. The struggling country, which is a routine offender on the list, climbed into the second worst spot—a frustrating development for nations like America that continue to pour resources and troops into the area. Even in the Bush years, religious liberty was a problem in the area.

As Open Doors points out, Islamic extremism is the biggest driver of persecution, “initiating oppression and conflict in 35 of the 50 countries on the list.” Now, with reports that Pakistan has been aiding Muslim radicals in Afghanistan, we’re starting to see the effects. President Donald Trump, to his credit, cut off aid to Pakistan, one of our supposed “allies” in the region, hoping he could persuade it to stop giving “safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan.”

Amazingly, “Afghanistan and North Korea are nearly tied. Never before,” Curry told reporters, “have the top two countries been so close in incidents. Both countries are extreme in intolerance and outright persecution of Christians in every area Open Doors monitors. Afghanistan now meets the same level of persecution as North Korea in five out of six areas. This is a tragedy considering the efforts being made by the international community to help rebuild Afghanistan are failing to ensure freedom of religion.”

Radical Islamists continue their march of savagery through most of the Middle East and Africa, burning schools and villages to the ground in their war against non-Muslims.

Pakistan, meanwhile, the accomplice to Afghanistan’s rise to infamy, scored the highest in “churches or church building attacks, abductions, and forced marriages.”

The Trump administration, which has done an admirable job cleaning up Iraq and driving the Islamic State out of the country, has another hill to climb in the surrounding nations. The problems of violence and extremism, which have mushroomed in the last decade, point back to President Barack Obama’s failures as an international leader—not only on terrorism, but religious liberty.

As we’ve said before, America’s silence under the last administration led to a rise in the global threat that Trump is now working furiously to control. Conservative leaders like former Rep. Frank Wolf spent the better part of Obama’s two terms begging him to get off the sidelines and defend the persecuted church. But if the president wouldn’t recognize the First Freedom of Americans here at home, how could he fight for the world’s? Fortunately, the new White House has no interest in tip-toeing around the issue of persecution.

Trump has been a staunch advocate for freedom, even going so far as to nominate Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback to take over as ambassador-at-large for religious liberty. In the coming weeks, Vice President Mike Pence will build on the new administration’s agenda, visiting the Middle East and asking for other leaders’ cooperation in the fight.

For now, Family Research Council’s Travis Weber says, the Open Doors watch list should serve as “a reminder to all of us in the United States to never take our freedom for granted. Indeed, we must use our freedom to advocate for freedom of religion for all around the world, even as we guard against its infringement here at home.”

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post North Korea, Afghanistan Top List of Dangerous Places to Be Christian appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Death Threats Against FCC Chairman Are Unprecedented and Must Stop

When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rolled back President Barack Obama’s “net neutrality” policy, Chairman Ajit Pai told reporters, “It’s not going to kill democracy.”

But could it kill him?

Federal officials are certainly concerned, now that a flood of death threats has reached a level most insiders say they’ve never seen. This is “routine for presidents and vice presidents,” sources say, “but highly unusual for heads of government agencies like the FCC.”

For the 44-year-old chief, the risks of the job were clear from his earliest days at the FCC. He tells horrifying stories about his house being surrounded by protestors, some lurking under his windows with signs of his children’s names.

“My kids are 5 and 3,” he told the Wall Street Journal in 2014. “It’s not pleasant.”

Now, the dangers to Pai and his family are so serious that the FCC head was forced to back out of a speech at one of the most important tech events of the year, the Consumer Electronics Show.

“Basically, if these threats are credible, you need armored vehicles—and I mean plural—not to mention area sweeps, aerial support, and Secret Service directly manning the commissioner at all times,” said a security expert familiar with the situation.

“There’s not the budget for staffing the Consumer Electronics Show from threats of that level,” he went on, explaining that Pai’s “detail is ill-equipped to protect against snipers, attackers, bombs, gas attacks, vehicular blockades, and other assassination attempts.”

Of course, the question on everyone’s minds is: Who cares this much about net neutrality?

Most people don’t even know what the FCC stands for, let alone who heads it. If it weren’t for Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction or Bono’s fleeting expletive, half the country probably wouldn’t know the agency existed.

As for net neutrality (which is about as misnamed as “marriage equality”), the issue has never been the stuff of mainstream political passion. It didn’t even get a passing mention in the presidential debates.

So what is it about this issue that’s leading an army of the far left to threaten an innocent man’s life?

Like most things, the crusade against Pai began in the dark shadows of Obama’s favorite radicals.

“The tech left, funded largely by George Soros, decided to champion under the banner of a benign-sounding ‘net neutrality’ campaign and seize a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to grab the moral high ground in their determination to allow the giant edge providers to censor the internet to suit their ideological preferences—ridding the internet of conservative and libertarian content,” Roger Stone explains in an eye-opening column for the Daily Caller.

Obama added the idea to his toolshed of unconstitutional crackdowns, all but demanding the FCC implement the policy in 2015.

As then-Commissioner Pai vented,

“Why is the FCC turning its back on internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the internet is not open? No. Is it because we have discovered some problem with our prior interpretation of the law? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told us to do so.”

Essentially, Stone explains, the FCC “legalized censorship, allowing Soros-funded groups to run rampant spreading the most violent messages possible, while at the same time aggressively censoring Donald Trump supporters and patriotic Americans who desire only to make their country great again.”

The very opposite, he points out, of neutrality. Or, conservatives might add, the FCC’s mission.

For Pai, things only got worse. HBO host John Oliver kicked off a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself,” determined to gin up outrage (and worse) against the FCC chair. Liberals blocked the Pais’ driveway, while others savaged him on the FCC site, unloading on Pai as a “dirty, sneaky Indian.”

The rampage got so out of control that Oliver had to call on his own flock to tone down the threats. They didn’t.

The Pai doorbell rang every half hour “with pizza deliveries that they had not ordered,” Commentary Magazine’s Noah Rothman explained in his column about Pai’s tormentors. His neighborhood was plastered with fliers of Pai and his vitals, like something out of the FBI’s Most Wanted.

“Is this really the world you want Annabelle and Alexander to inherit,” read a hand-made sign affixed to a lamppost outside Pais’ residence in November, making a point to emphasize the names of Pai’s two children. “They will come to know the truth: Dad murdered democracy in cold blood,” read another.

The harassment of Pai and his family is a national outrage that should be a headline in every news outlet in America—especially considering the irony of the left’s position. These fanatics are attacking Pai on the same internet they’re complaining isn’t neutral. Only a liberal could keep a straight face.

For the rest of society, it’s just another example of the left’s ruthless and relentless intolerance. An intolerance, sadly, that too many in the media ignore—if not embrace.

As Pai said on “Washington Watch” in November, this culture of cruelty must stop.

“I cannot say in strong enough terms how much I reject this notion that people who are passionate about an issue … should go after public officials personally and their families—particularly the families. In my case, it’s been extremely unpleasant, to say the least, to have to think about these things and worry about them.

Even today, there are criminal charges filed against a man who called up Congressman [John] Katko in upstate New York and said, ‘If you don’t vote for net neutrality, I will kill you and your family…’ There’s no place in civilized society for that.”

Disagreements used to be an opportunity for debate. Now, we don’t even pretend to look for consensus.

In this post-civil world, some Americans have simply lost the desire for common courtesy—and excusing the bad behavior of an enlightened few as “justice” or “reasonable resistance” doesn’t help.

In the last decade, conservatives have paid the price for their convictions with their careers, businesses, life savings, and security. If anyone misses real neutrality, it’s us.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Death Threats Against FCC Chairman Are Unprecedented and Must Stop appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Number of High School Students Who Have Had Sex Drops

For every parent who’s tried to tell their teenage kids that “everyone’s not doing it,” here’s proof! According to the CDC’s new nationwide report, the number of high school students who said they’ve ever had sex dropped from 47 percent in 2005 to 41 percent in 2015. The good news is even better for African American students, who showed improvements across the board, followed by Hispanics who practiced more abstinence in three of the four grades.

None of this is thanks to President Obama, researchers say. After two terms of the last administration’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” approach, most experts agree he accomplished one thing: making the situation worse. “Compared with their peers,” a 2016 study by the American Journal of Public Health found, “teenagers in the [government’s programs] were more likely to begin having sex… and more likely to get pregnant.” And it’s no wonder. The curriculum was so extreme that 40 percent of young people actually said they felt more pressure to engage in sex from their sex ed classes than from their boyfriends or girlfriends!

In other words, the Obama administration wasn’t just wasting money on an approach that doesn’t work but also makes the problems worse! Fortunately, conservatives in Congress have been steadily chipping away at the dollars America is wasting on these failures. Under the latest spending bill, Republicans take direct aim at the $110 million money pit of the liberals’ Teen Pregnancy Prevention Programs and start redirecting a portion of it to a message that even Obama’s CDC reluctantly endorsed: abstinence.

And guess what? This approach isn’t just what works, but what teenagers want. According to our friends at Ascend, most young people support saving sex for marriage. Most of them don’t like the idea of casual sex, want to wait, or wish they’d waited longer. When the CDC released its latest numbers on teen sex, researchers were stumped. Most people just assumed kids were having sex. And maybe that’s part of the problem. We’re so busy teaching about birth control that we don’t even bother with self-control.

Somewhere along the way, it became assumed, not discouraged, that teenagers would have sex. And as a result, we have an entire area of teen education accelerates the risks instead of curbing them. Think about the other behaviors that can devastate a young person’s life. We don’t tell kids to drink less. We tell them not to drink, period. The same with smoking. We don’t hand them filters assuming that they’ll light up anyway. We challenge them not to.

Most teenagers want to be challenged to stay pure too. Unfortunately, there just aren’t enough people teaching them how. Maybe parents are too embarrassed to talk about sex or think their kids aren’t listening. Well, I’ve got news for you — they are. Valerie Huber, who left Ascend to take a leadership post in Trump’s Health and Human Services Department, knows from personal experience: “The healthiest message for youth is one that gives youth the skills and information to avoid the risks of teen sex, not merely reduce them. This is a message that is relevant in 2016, since the majority of teens have not had sex, far fewer, in fact, than 20 years ago.” It’s time to adapt our thinking, our strategies, and our public policy to an approach that makes the most sense for our kids and their future. And based on the latest research, that isn’t Obama’s.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Number of High School Students Who Have Had Sex Drops appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Group Advises Those ‘Fed Up With the Liberal Assault on … Decency’ to Boycott Target

You may not know what to buy for your family, but we know where to buy! #AnywhereButTARGET is the holiday rallying cry of our friends at 2nd Vote, who want to keep the heat on the retailer for its radical agenda.

“Fed up with the liberal assault on common sense and decency in our schools and workplaces?” they ask. “Tired of corporations carrying the water for a radical agenda that undermines our values and safety? Our campaign to send Target a message continues as we’re still shopping #AnywhereButTARGET, because we don’t think conservatives should fund Target’s radical social agenda.”

Of course, the company has done everything in its power to rescue its falling profits—everything but reversing the one policy that’s resulted in a 1.5 million-person boycott (and plenty of episodes of criminal activity). Christmas is the one time a year that Target could make up a lot of financial ground. Don’t let it. Watch the video below and get on board with 2nd Vote. If you’re still not convinced, check out the American Family Association’s three reasons to shop elsewhere this month.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Group Advises Those ‘Fed Up With the Liberal Assault on … Decency’ to Boycott Target appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Pennsylvania’s Push to Protect Unborn Lives

If this has been “one of the most successful Congresses” for the pro-life agenda, then the states deserve some of the credit.

While Republicans were desperately trying to stop President Barack Obama’s runaway abortion train, local leaders were hard at work, making progress on the ground until they had allies back in power. The number of pro-life bills exploded—a wave that helped push the House and Senate to make the issue a No. 1 priority when they took over the reins in Congress.

That momentum continues in states like Pennsylvania, where voters gave the GOP the largest Republican majority in the state House since 1957. Last week, they put it to good use, limiting the window when women can have abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, when scientists know babies can feel pain.

By an impressive 121-70 vote, Senate Bill 3 sailed through the Legislature, hoping to make a dent in the 31,818 lives that were lost to abortion in 2015.

Apart from tightening the timeframe when moms can end their pregnancies, members also banned doctors from dismembering babies in the “barbaric and unnecessary” procedure known as dilation and evacuation. They also required a face-to-face consultation with a medical staffer before a woman can move forward with the procedure.

As usual, these commonsense protections were blasted by the state’s liberals, who complain that Senate Bill 3 “would eviscerate 43 years of due process protections,” according to state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny. Fortunately, more leaders were concerned about eviscerating innocent children than the phony precedent created by an activist Roe v. Wade.

State Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Montgomery, took another tact, insisting that her colleagues shouldn’t pass the bill because no one in the Pennsylvania House or Senate is a doctor.

Does that mean they shouldn’t pass transit proposals if no one’s a bus driver? Or what about sanitation laws? Should they wait until a garbage man runs for state Senate? That’s a ridiculous argument for several reasons—not the least of which is that doctors haven’t cornered the market on what’s moral or safe. And, I guarantee the Legislature heard from plenty of medical professionals in the debate leading up to Wednesday’s vote.

Our hats go off to Pennsylvania’s leaders, who understand that mothers deserve better than the flimsy care and lax standards of Democrats, who are more concerned with pleasing Planned Parenthood than protecting women.

Unfortunately for the Keystone State, one of those Democrats is Gov. Tom Wolf, who’s threatened to disregard the will of the people and veto the bill.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Pennsylvania’s Push to Protect Unborn Lives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Numbers That Prove How Much the Mainstream Media Hate Trump

There may be fake news, but there’s no making up the media’s loathing of President Donald Trump.

The press has been unrelenting toward this president since Day One—and the Media Research Center’s data proves it. Even the 89 percent negativity from his early months almost seem benevolent now, with numbers in the 91-93 percent range (the latter according to Harvard).

“Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources),” the Media Research Center explains. “In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative. In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.”

The hostility is tough to ignore, spilling over into fiery White House press briefings and a line of questioning more combative than most Hill hearings. “Add it all up,” the Media Research Center reports, “and coverage of Trump has been 91 percent negative during the past three months. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative, which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president.”

And the bias isn’t just in conservatives’ heads. Former President (and Democrat) Jimmy Carter knows a little something about dealing with the press as the leader of the free world. Even he agrees: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he told The New York Times. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The reality is that to date the president has systematically gone about fulfilling his campaign promises—and that’s what’s driving people opposed to a conservative, pro-American agenda crazy.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post The Numbers That Prove How Much the Mainstream Media Hate Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

An Unelected Judge Is Overriding Trump’s Transgender Military Policy

Do you remember voting for Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in last year’s presidential election? Neither does anyone else. But somehow the local district judge thinks she should be able to do President Donald Trump’s job.

In another ruling that not only exposes her incredible liberal bent, but the bigger battle with the out-of-control judiciary, Kollar-Kotelly is turning down the administration’s request for more time in dealing with the military’s transgender question.

Instead, she’s holding the new administration to the old one’s radicalism, insisting that the Defense Department open its doors to people confused about their gender as early as Jan. 1.

Back in October, the U.S. District Court judge for the District of Columbia made it clear that she’s no fan of the Constitution’s separation of powers, unilaterally ordering the president to stand down in his push to return the military to good order. She single-handedly blocked Trump’s efforts to stop people who identify as transgender from serving in the military, despite the reams of research showing its negative effects on troop morale, readiness, and resources.

The Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg, who calculated that taxpayers would be staring down a $3.7 billion tab for President Barack Obama’s social engineering, could only shake his head at the court’s activism.

“The reason for this policy is not because the president or Defense Department doesn’t like transgender people. It’s because they have a unique medical condition which makes them [ineligible] for military service because they have limited deployability.”

Asked point-blank, almost 60 percent of active-duty military held a negative opinion of the decision to allow troops who label themselves as transgender to serve openly. More telling, more than half of that group said the policy change was having a terrible effect on military morale. In other words, it was unpopular, unproductive, and unreasonably expensive.

Is it any wonder that one year after Obama changed the policy, Trump changed it back? Like most Americans, he understands that the military’s job is to fight and win wars—not pander to a political agenda that weakens national security.

The president’s primary task is protecting Americans. Yet now we’re watching activist courts do everything from curb the executive branch’s power to telling the commander in chief how to run the military. And without the barest form of accountability to the same people who elected Trump.

“This type of judicial activism gives the court a self-conferred ‘veto’ of any presidential decision concerning the military the court simply thinks is unlawful,” the Family Research Council’s Travis Weber warns. “That’s not the way our constitutional order works.”

Not to mention, Trump has access to information, data, and intelligence reports that Kollar-Kotelly never will. If he thinks Obama’s policy will undermine national security, then it’s within his rights to declare as much.

Fortunately, the battle is far from over. Justice Department officials are already plotting their next move. “We disagree with the Court’s ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps.” One of which, Politico reports, is requesting an emergency stay on the ruling.

“Without this relief, the military will be forced to implement a significant change to its standards for the composition of the armed forces before it decides how to resolve this issue,” the government’s attorneys argue. “As military leadership has explained, this timetable will place extraordinary burdens on our armed forces and may harm military readiness.”

Trump understands better than anyone the threat this poses to our nation, and he told me as much Monday during our meeting at the White House. He isn’t backing down because one judge has decided to push a radical political agenda that has no basis in law.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post An Unelected Judge Is Overriding Trump’s Transgender Military Policy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Support Grows for Air Force Colonel Suspended Over Religious Beliefs on Marriage

When Heather Wilson was picked to be secretary of the Air Force, she told the Senate: “Air Force policy must continue to ensure that all airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion.” Now, she has a chance to prove it.

On Wednesday, the Family Research Council’s Lt. General Jerry Boykin and Travis Weber gave Wilson 77,024 reasons to reconsider the action taken against Col. Leland Bohannon.

A distinguished combat pilot, Bohannon has served his country for more than 20 years. In May, the reputation he’d built in the Air Force came crashing down when his superiors decided that the colonel’s decision not to sign a “certificate of appreciation” for a same-sex spouse was enough to suspend him from duty.

Never mind that Bohannon had requested a religious accommodation. Or that he’d consulted the command chaplain and a staff judge advocate. Leaders seemed determined to make an example of the dad of five, grounding him and snuffing out any chance of promotion. Eight senators were outraged, demanding that Air Force leaders intervene. Then, more than 77,000 of you piled on, urging justice for Bohannon and others like him.

Wednesday, Boykin and Weber delivered those petitions on behalf of the Family Research Council and our friends at the American Family Association—along with a letter signed by 31 religious advocacy groups.

“In his Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty issued earlier this year,” the organizations write, “President Trump stated that ‘it shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce Federal law’s robust protections for religious freedom,’ and that people should be ‘free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by the Federal Government.’ Yet despite his impressive decades-long career with the Air Force, Col. Bohannon’s life and service are about to be derailed by the violation of this fundamental principle.”

Not only is there no right to a certificate of spousal appreciation, an accommodation should easily have been granted here … If the Air Force policy reflected the view of [Department of Justice] on this issue, those in Col. Bohannon’s situation would have no need to be concerned for their religious liberty in the first place, and we urge the Air Force to bring its policies into line with the understanding of the DOJ in this area … In addition to correcting Air Force policy to ensure this does not happen again, we respectfully request that you reverse the complaint against Col. Bohannon and remove any unfavorable materials related to this complaint from his record.

As far as Boykin is concerned, “We not only delivered petitions, we delivered a message: We will not back down from defending the religious liberty of those in the military. The action taken against Colonel Bohannon is unacceptable, and Air Force policy must be corrected to ensure this does not happen again.”

Thanks to tens of thousands of you, Secretary Wilson may be motivated to do just that.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The post Support Grows for Air Force Colonel Suspended Over Religious Beliefs on Marriage appeared first on The Daily Signal.