There is not a single social conservative group left in Washington. But one need not be a social conservative to understand the settled science of X and Y chromosomes.
Not even the military is safe from the Rainbow Jihad
Last year, in one of the many stupefying power grabs of the judiciary, several district judges issued a royal edict demanding that Trump admit into the military the most suicidal demographic of men who self-identify as women or vice versa. A policy that never existed since our founding until the final year of Obama’s presidency and was certainly never authorized by statute was, much like executive amnesty, codified into our Constitution by rogue judges.
At the time, I asked the obvious question: where is Congress and what is its response? After all, had this happened just a half a generation ago, there would have been bipartisan pushback against such a radical and dangerous move both from a military standpoint and from a separation of powers standpoint – that a district judge could now become commander in chief.
In comes the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As we noted last week, the entire purpose of the authorization bill is to debate the policies of the military and its entire mission, not just spending figures and procurements. Yet most of the discussion and proposed amendments deal with the latter, without questioning the foundational purpose of our missions or our mission readiness.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, stepped up to the plate and offered amendments dealing with the dangerous social engineering and the religious liberty problems in the military. He proposed an amendment to bar funding for transgender sensitivity training and for enforcing Obama’s Executive Order 13672, which forced all defense contractors to comply with the transgender agenda in order to do business with the Pentagon.
One would think that with Republicans in charge of Congress and a sitting president supportive of such ideas, the least leadership would do is make the amendments in order, if not downright stir up support of those amendments. Yet the Rules Committee, which is an arm of the speaker, rejected those amendments while approving a number of ridiculous Democrat amendments and amendments dealing with issues of significantly less importance.
However, this is not surprising. We already knew that the GOP establishment long ago conceded that anything the sexual identity movement wants to do will not be met with a modicum of opposition, even when it hurts our combat readiness. What is shocking is that not a single “pro-family” Washington group has focused on this issue. I was told by a member of Congress yesterday that “every pro-family group,” including the Family Research Council, supported jailbreak legislation that will retroactively release thousands of hardened federal prisoners ahead of time with almost no exceptions. Yet I confirmed with Steve King’s office that not a single group spoke out in support of his NDAA amendments, which are clearly more germane to their stated mission than soft-on-crime initiatives.
This is a widespread ailment plaguing the conservative movement. President Trump has not been a religious Christian or conservative for most of his life, and it is not realistic to expect him to be more fervent in support of their priorities than the groups are themselves. Yet Trump seems to be sensitive to campaign promises and recognizes the role Christians played in getting him elected. Imagine if “social conservative” groups actually said that what they want as a movement is the president’s support for amendments in the defense bill blocking the transgender agenda and the judicial assault on his role as commander in chief. Imagine if these groups actually fought back against the judicial war on God and natural law and brought these ideas to the attention of the president with the same vigor that they marshal to promote sympathy for drug traffickers.
Just yesterday, a federal district judge in Virginia ruled that Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment create a right for a girl to use the boys’ bathroom and that a school district must accommodate it. You heard that right. With the flick of the wrist, a random federal judge can suggest that an amendment ratified in 1867 and a statute written in 1972 force schools to allow those with the wrong plumbing into the men’s room. Have we lost our minds as a movement that something like this could happen and none of these groups even care? We’ve reached a point where district courts are winning 50-year culture battles overnight for the hard Left, and these groups ignore proposals for judicial reform and refuse to promote them with Congress with the same gusto they now promote the jailbreak agenda.
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for free abortions and castration operations.”
Not only has America become an abortion and transgender wasteland, including in our military, we are now the world’s magnet for social licentiousness. Call it chain migration of cultural Marxism.
A slew of court rulings in recent months bestowed upon abortion migrants the right to come here and demand access to an abortion. The second most important court in the land, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that all teenage girls (and some lie about their age) coming here for an abortion must be given direct access to an abortion clinic. Another judge went a step further and made it clear that the government must fully notify teenagers of their “right” to an abortion. Thus, we have abortion refugees.
Now there is a growing trend of courts granting asylum for transgenderism. The same countries that don’t allow abortions also don’t enthusiastically support self-immolation as we do here. Naturally, people are now coming here for “asylum.” Just yesterday, an immigration judge granted asylum to someone fleeing Mexico asserting they fear because of their status as transgendered. Even Article III judges have been applying the Constitution to mix a “right to immigrate” with a “right to self-identify.”
And where are the so-called social conservative groups? Why am I the only one pushing judicial reform?
Moments ago, a radical leftist judge in New York issued an opinion saying that Trump can’t block individual Twitter accounts from following his account. It’s mind-boggling how a case like this even gets standing and exemplifies how courts have been transformed into political legislatures. This should be the biggest story of the day and should galvanize conservatives to promote judicial reform.
Trump has shown a willingness to give us victories on cultural issues, as witnessed this week with his decision on abortion funding. But if we don’t even ask and make him aware of the options on the table, he won’t be more religious than the so-called religious groups themselves. If all social conservatives ask of Trump is that he promote jailbreak, that is all we will get.
Here’s my challenge to everyone who considers themselves a pro-life and pro-family group in Washington. Will you fight for traditional values and judicial reform with the same alacrity, intrepidity, and effectiveness that you employed this week to get conservatives on board for jailbreak legislation?
For if religious political activism in Washington has now been relegated exclusively to fighting for more Islamic refugees, open borders, and soft-on-crime initiatives, then there is no need for their existence. We already have George Soros.
Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.