For those who have been enjoying the waning days of summer away from news and social media, basking maskless by a refreshing body of water or hiking in a cool forest with a face as naked as a newborn babe’s, here’s what set ablaze the perpetually burning neurons of leftists: Texas banned all abortions performed on small humans whose hearts are beating and made anyone who facilitates the illegal killing of humans with beating hearts open to litigation. Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, I’ve never been a fan of killing defenseless humans who have committed no crime.

Following Texas’ prohibition of human slaughter after the first six weeks of life, the left lost what’s left of their minds.

With their feticidal minds unhinged at the prospect of mothers not being free to hire hitmen who identify as “physicians” to off their offspring, leftists proved again why they’re not known for skill in the use of evidence, sound analogical thinking, respect for science, respect for human rights, coherence, consistency, or morality.

Let’s take a cursory look at the darn things cultural regressives are muttering, sputtering, and tweeting:

Joe Biden, the self-identifying Catholic who claims his “avocation” is theology, recently said,

I respect people who … don’t support Roe v. Wade. I respect their views. I respect … those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all. I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that.

But wait, in 2015 Biden said,

I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.

So, which is it? Does he believe that at the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence or does he not? If not, what new science convinced him between age 72 and 78 that the union of human egg and sperm no longer marks the beginning of the life of a new human being?

(As an aside, why can’t leftists who claim to believe that women can be born in men’s bodies and that men can menstruate and give birth be like Biden and respect the views of God-fearing and non-God-fearing people who disagree?)

Disgraceful CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, brother of disgraced former governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, tried to suggest that 6-week-old human fetuses don’t have heartbeats because they don’t have hearts. The Mayo Clinic dares to dissent:

Growth is rapid this week [sixth week]. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing. The baby’s brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form and the heart begins to beat.

Please note, the Mayo Clinic refers to the baby as a “baby.”

CNN’s Joy Reid fretted that the Texas law signals the Handmaid’s Tale is coming to America—you know, the story of fertile breeding women being forced to have sex with ruling elite men while their wives watch. Reid’s guest, failed presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, nodding in agreement, fretted about the law’s impact on the “most vulnerable among us”:

This law is about bearing down on the most vulnerable among us. It’s bearing down on the woman, or the transperson, or the nonbinary who’s workin’ three jobs.

Warren views pregnant “transpersons” who are workin’ three jobs as more vulnerable than the babies whom they seek to kill.

Bette Midler tweeted,

I suggest that all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.

Midler forgot to specify the direct object of the transitive verb “choose.” To be clear, she means the right to choose to have incipient human life killed.

I completely agree with Midler that if a woman plans to chemically starve her baby fetus or have her fetus dismembered as her back-up contraception plan, it’s best she not have sex.

Millionaire leftist co-founders of the ridesharing company Lyft, Logan Green and John Zimmer, have gone all out in support of killing tiny humans:

Lyft is donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood to help ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access.

Killing humans is not “healthcare” no matter how many times leftists use this Newspeakian euphemism. Anyone who cares about the health of womb-dwellers ought not use Lyft.

And any leftist who believes that practices that have a “disparate impact” on persons of color are racist practices should know that black babies are killed in utero at much higher rates than are white babies:

Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. … In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

The millions of dollars donated by racists Green and Zimmer are going to facilitate the racist practices of Planned Parenthood.

The ever-snippy White House spokesperson Jen Psaki scolded a reporter for asking about how Biden reconciles his Catholic faith with his support for human slaughter. Psaki’s retort was revelatory in that it demonstrated how un-woke she is.

Without even asking for the reporter’s pronouns, Psaki just assumed the reporter was a man, presumably because he looks like a man and sounds like a man. Psaki asserted presumptuously that the reporter has never been pregnant. How does she know? Doesn’t Psaki know that in the woke playbook, some women have men’s bodies, and some men have women’s bodies and can get pregnant? I guess Psaki is an intolerant, hateful, ignorant bigot.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Texas law constitutes “a real blow against the U.S. Supreme Court’s institutional reputation.”  It’s strange to hear Toobin, who pleasured himself on a work Zoom call, express concern over “reputation.” But then again, Toobin has a vested interest in keeping abortion legal: He pressured a former paramour with whom he had had an extramarital affair to abort their now 12-year-old son. Toobin may be planning for his future “needs.”

Toobin also described Roe v. Wade as the “second most famous opinion of the last 100 years.” He should have said “most infamous opinion of the last 150 years.” Here’s what liberal legal scholars and pundits have said about the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor)

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun)

• “Blackmun’s [U.S. Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer)

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (John Hart Ely, former law professor at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford universities)

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous.” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist)

• “[T]he finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor)

• “Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor)

• “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor)

One law professor who has no need of constitutional grounding for abortion is UC Irvine law professor and cheerleader for legalized human slaughter, Michele Goodwin. Goodwin is a long-time and influential advocate of the legal right to kill the preborn. She and co-author Erwin Chemerinsky set forth their goals in a 2017 paper titled, “Abortion: a Woman’s Private Choice”:

We begin by justifying the protection of rights not found in the text of the Constitution. … Foremost among these rights is control over one’s body and over one’s reproduction. … Finally in Part III we discuss what it would mean for abortion to be regarded as a private choice. In this Part, we identify three implications: a) restoring strict scrutiny to examining laws regulating abortions, which would mean that the government must be neutral between childbirth and abortion; b) preventing the government from denying funding for abortions when it pays for childbirth; and c) invalidating the countless types of restrictions on abortion. (emphasis added)

Goodwin rightly condemns the “notorious eugenics period in the United States,” in which allegedly defective preborn babies were forcibly killed by the government. Goodwin fails, however, to acknowledge the difference between the government mandating that a doctor perform a surgical procedure on the body of a woman without her consent and the government prohibiting a doctor from dismembering or in other ways destroying the body of a human fetus without his or her consent.

Goodwin also believes the Texas bill to preserve human life is analogous to the Fugitive Slave Act. She believes that the grotesque law that incentivized citizens to help send humans into bondage is analogous to a law that incentivizes citizens to help prevent the slaughter of humans. Some might counter that the Texas law is more akin to laws that offer rewards for the capture of killers than it is to the Fugitive Slave Act.

Now that leftists have lost control of the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re stomping their angry feet and demanding the Court be jampacked with leftists, something conservatives have not called for to repair the grievous harm done by seven Justices in 1973. Neither the Constitution nor the will of the people matters to “progressives.”

There is no constitutional or moral right to have humans killed because of their dependency status, location, absence of self-consciousness, lack of full development, disabilities, anticipated future, maternal inconvenience, insufficient maternal finances, or crimes of their fathers. A civilized, compassionate, moral, and just society does not find the final solution to poverty, disease, disability, or any other form of human suffering in the killing of others. And in the Constitution, there is no free-floating absolute right to privacy in which humans can do anything they feel like doing to other human beings. Leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justices invented such a “right” out of whole blood-stained cloth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Progressives-Say-the-Darndest-Things-About-Killing-Tiny-Humans.mp3

One of the more grotesque demonstrations of leftist non-sense and hypocrisy was demonstrated a week ago following an episode of the wildly popular Disney show The Mandalorian when “Baby Yoda” eats the unfertilized eggs of a Frog Woman who is transporting her eggs to her husband so he can fertilize them thereby preventing their species’ imminent extinction. Fans of Baby Yoda freaked out, incensed at the lighthearted treatment of what they deemed genocide by the beloved Baby Yoda.

The moral incoherence and hypocrisy should be obvious. In the Upside Down where leftists live, when a human mother hires someone to dismember her own fertilized human egg—aka human fetus/embryo/baby—they demand that society affirm, celebrate, and shout the execution of those tiny humans. In fact, the voluntary dismemberment of fertilized human eggs at any gestational age is so morally innocuous and such an unmitigated public good that leftists think all Americans should pay for the executions of humans in utero.

In the Upside Down, the genocidal killing of all fertilized human eggs with Down Syndrome is at best morally neutral if not morally good, but the fictional devouring of unfertilized Frog Critters’ eggs is morally repugnant. Just wondering, if fertilized human eggs are parasites so devoid of personhood as to render them morally legitimate objects to kill, if it’s okay to dismember them because they’re imperfect non-persons, would there be anything wrong with eating their remains?

Leftists views on the slaughter of fertilized human eggs is just the most grotesque of their many morally incoherent views. Here are a few more:

• According to leftists, concerns of conservatives about possible 2020 election “irregularities”—including via computer malfeasance and malfunction—are evidence of paranoid conspiracy theories, but when leftists express such concerns, they’re sound, reasonable, and legitimate. In 2019, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden proposed an amendment titled “Protecting American Votes and Elections Act” to the “Help America Vote Act of 2002.” His proposed amendment was signed by 14 co-sponsors—all Democrats—including a who’s who of presidential wannabes: Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Duckworth, Brian Schatz, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, Maria Cantwell, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, and Patty Murray. Wyden provided a summary of his amendment that includes the following:

Votes cast with paperless voting machines cannot be subjected to a manual recount, and so there is no way to determine the real election results if they are hacked. H.R. 1 …  mandates paper ballots.

In order to detect hacks, this bill requires election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

• Leftists heartily endorse bodily damage and disfigurement as sound “treatment” protocols for those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their sexual embodiment as male or female, but bodily damage and disfigurement of those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their whole or healthy bodies (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder who identify as amputees or paraplegics) are considered barbaric and ethically prohibited.

• Leftists condemn conservatives as “science-deniers” for disagreeing with them on the degree to which climate change is caused by human action or on how to respond to climate change. At the same time, the purported science-worshippers claim that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and “chestfeed,” and they claim that the product of conception between two persons is not a person. Anyone who refuses to concede to such nonsense is mocked, reviled, de-platformed, and fired. Just ask Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling or Wall Street Journal writer and author of Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier.

• Leftists claim that marriage has no connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential. They vociferously claim that marriage is solely constituted by love, and that “love is love.” And yet most leftists don’t think two brothers in a consensual loving relationship should be able to legally marry.

• Leftists claim there’s no story behind or within Hunter Biden’s emails and texts that prove Joe Biden straight up lied to the American public, and yet they claimed there was a story of such magnitude and enormity within Christopher Steele’s imaginative “dossier,” that it necessitated 24-hour coverage for years.

• Leftists claim that eliminating the Electoral College and filibuster and packing the U.S. Supreme Court constitute necessary changes to enhance “democracy,” but implementing legal processes to ensure an election was fair undermines democracy.

• Every gathering of leftists, including mostly violent protests, a takeover of six city blocks, trips to hair salons (Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), a post-election street celebration (Lori Lightfoot), a holiday boating excursion (attempted by husband of Michigan Governor Christine Whitmer), restaurant dining (California Governor Gavin Newsom, CNN narcissist Chris Cuomo), a funeral/Democrat campaign event (i.e., John Lewis’ faux-funeral) are COVID-immune and justifiable. But an Orthodox Jewish funeral, an entirely peaceful protest of draconian COVID restrictions, and a march in support of a transparent and fair election are denounced as super-spreader events.

• Serial killer of senior citizens, Andrew “Quietus” Cuomo, commands citizens to “admit” their “mistakes” and “shortcomings” with regard to how they responded to the Chinese Communist virus even as he refuses to apologize for his policies that killed scores of elderly.

• To leftists, social science is the god that determines all moral truth, and yet despite social science demonstrating repeatedly that children—especially boys—need fathers, the left refuses to discuss how fatherless families may be contributing to the anti-social behavior that is destroying our cities.

• Leftists claim to value free speech, religious liberty, inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, and unity while condemning not just the beliefs of those with whom they disagree, but also the persons themselves. Many leftists share an uncharitable, presumptuous, ugly, tyrannical, oppressive, and scary desire that those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, who believe marriage has an ontology, who believe biological sex is immutable and meaningful, and who believe bodily damage and disfigurement are improper treatment protocols for gender dysphoria should be unable to work anywhere in America.

To create the illusion that they’re not hypocrites and to defend their intolerance, exclusion, divisiveness, hatred of persons, book banning, speech suppression, demand for ideological uniformity, and efforts to circumscribe the  exercise of religion—which for Christians extends far outside the church walls—leftists resort to fallacious reasoning. The fallacies they employ are too numerous to list, but two of their faves are the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Ad hominem is an informal fallacy in which an irrelevant personal attack replaces a logical argument. It proves nothing about the soundness, truth, or falsity of a claim. Instead it appeals to emotion and silences debate through intimidation.

The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion presumes the premise (i.e., the initial claim) is true without proving it true. So, for example, leftists–ignoring their purported commitment to the First Amendment–argue that homosexual acts are moral acts and, therefore, there is no need to tolerate the expression of dissenting views. But the intolerance they are trying to defend is based on the truth of their premise that homosexual acts are moral—a premise they simply assume without proving is true.

Here’s another: Leftists assert that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings, and, therefore, the government has no reason not to recognize unions between two people of the same sex as marriages, because such couples can experience love and erotic desire. But the premise—i.e., that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings—hasn’t been proved.

And here’s yet another claim about marriage based on circular reasoning: Leftists argue that the reason government is involved in marriage is to grant public legitimacy or provide “dignity” to erotic/romantic unions and, therefore, the government has an obligation to recognize homoerotic unions as marriages. The problem is that those who make this argument fail to prove their claim that the reason government is involved in marriage is to recognize, provide, or impart “dignity” to unions. Those who make this argument just assume their premise is true.

After employing fallacious circular reasoning and hurling ad hominem epithets at their opponents, leftists sanctimoniously wipe the dust off their dirty hands and assert that their hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy after all.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ideological-Non-Sense-and-Hypocrisy-of-Leftists.mp3

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

Written by Lathan Watts

When those entrusted with power to protect the God given rights of the people do so selectively, arbitrarily picking and choosing which freedoms are worthy of protection and to what extent, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law but by the whims of men.

President Abraham Lincoln once observed,

“Nearly all men can stand the test of adversity, but if you really want to test a man’s character give him power.”

America now faces of a convergence of calamities unlike any our nation has dealt with in nearly a century. Amidst the confusion, what has become clear is the character of those in power is being tested and some are found as lacking in character as in their understanding of the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic we heard government officials at every level repeat some version of the mantra “the first priority of government is protecting the health and safety of the citizens.” The first priority, in fact the justification for the existence of government, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.

For example, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy when asked by Fox News host Tucker Carlson how he could justify the arrest of 15 men attending the funeral of a Rabbi replied,

“That’s above my paygrade Tucker, I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this…”

Of course, government is charged with protecting the health and safety of the citizens but it must be done, as all government action, within the parameters of the Constitution. First Liberty Institute and our volunteer attorney network have taken elected officials to court all over the country to hold them to this standard.

What has also become clear is how some in government and the media are willing to demand constitutional protections be enforced or abandoned depending on the subject matter. When business owners peacefully assembled to protest against the government imposed lockdown they were called everything from “selfish” to “domestic terrorists” and accused of valuing money over the lives of others.

When protests over the death of George Floyd broke out in cities across the country, no such concern over public health could be heard. It was exactly the opposite response. Over 1000 public health professionals signed on to a letter specifically calling for governments not to use concern over the spread of COVID 19 to stop protest marches and other demonstrations:

“However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States. We can show that support by facilitating safest protesting practices without detracting from demonstrators’ ability to gather and demand change. This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” (emphasis added)

The last sentence of that letter means either the virus can distinguish between protestors based on the issue they’re protesting or these public health officials care more about virtue signaling and adherence to political ideology than the public health.

Any American with a modicum of morality and respect for justice in a civil society was appalled at what happened to George Floyd. That same sense of morality and respect for justice is what causes many to recoil at the sight of violent arsonists and thieves masquerading as protestors attempting to cloak their crimes in lawful activity.

Yet CNN anchor Chris Cuomo saw no conflict between the two,

“Now too many see the protests as the problem. No, the problem is what forced your fellow citizens to take to the streets: persistent, poisonous inequities and injustice, and please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful…”

One hopes someone showed him the text of the First Amendment which protects the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The beauty of the First Amendment is in its protection of all religion, speech, press, peaceful assemblies equally, without any regard to the popularity of the ideas. If our republic is to survive we must hold ourselves and those we entrust with power to the same principled standard.

This article was originally published at FirstLiberty.org.

Written by David French

This is surely one of the strangest tweet exchanges I’ve ever seen. Here’s CNN’s Christopher Cuomo responding to a person who asks, “What do you tell a 12 year old girl who doesn’t want to see a penis in the locker room?” His answer?

Not long ago, if school policies purposefully exposed girls to male genitals, they’d be subject to a backbreaking sexual harassment lawsuit. Suddenly, however, “tolerance” looks a lot like indecent exposure, and indecent exposure is what freedom looks like. This is beyond strange. I’m certain Cuomo would still object to a member of the football team walking straight into a girl’s locker room and disrobing, but he not only doesn’t object to the exact same anatomical features if they’re attached to a trans “girl,” he condems those who feel uncomfortable.

If the declaration that “preteen girls shouldn’t see penis at school” doesn’t resonate, I wonder if there’s really any hope for a common moral language when discussing the sexual revolution. In this circumstance, not even consent — the final moral firewall — matters. We used to be told that boys and girls should shielded from unwelcome sexual images. Now we’re told that they can be exposed to genitalia even over their strenuous objection, and they’re intolerant if they argue otherwise. Extraordinary.

The left-wing intolerance on this point is so extreme that they condemn school officials who seek to protect trans kids by giving them their own, private facilities — places where they can change in complete privacy. Yet arrangements like this are characterized as cruel and heartless discrimination rather than the compassionate accommodation they so clearly are. There are ways to protect the rights to all parties to this cultural dispute, but when social engineering is the goal, compromise is out of the question.

This article was originally posted at National Review.

Written by Mark K. Lewis

CNN anchor Chris Cuomo recently declared: “Our rights do not come from God.” Then this week, Sen. Ted Cruz’s assertion that “our rights don’t come from man, they come from God Almighty” came under scrutiny when Meredith Shiner, a Yahoo reporter, tweeted: “Bizarre to talk about how rights are God-made and not man-made in your speech announcing a POTUS bid? When Constitution was man-made?”

I am astounded by how many people in this country (and particularly in the media) don’t believe the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The Declaration of Independence also refers to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Believing that our laws are God-given, and not man-made, has become something that secular liberals seem to take joy in openly mocking. As if there were something inherently funny or backwards about faith. As if there were something hollow and foolish about believing in God.

Obviously, I believe very strongly that the opposite is true.

This might sound like a pedantic point to make, but nearly all of our political discord comes down to fundamental differences in our worldviews. Two very good people can start out with two very different philosophies of life and inevitably come to two very different conclusions on a nearly innumerable amount of problems. Sometimes the consequences are profound. And that’s the case here. Rejection of this foundational principle of God-given law would inexorably lead someone to come to vastly different conclusions about any number of things compared to someone like me who embraces this premise. When liberals and conservatives differ over whether or not the state has the right to usurp this or that right, dig deep enough, and you will often find the root of the disagreement lies here.

I believe very strongly that our rights come from God. And I believe nearly as strongly that the implications of believing that our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are granted by the state are potentially catastrophic. Ideas have consequences, and while some might see quibbling over such esoteric and grandiose ideas to be a waste of time, the truth is that where one comes down on such fundamental questions will likely predetermine where one comes down on a wide range of modern-day “hot-button” issues. When you consider how much of the current political debate hinges on fights about individual liberty and the size and scope of government, this makes sense.

Set aside religion and consider this: If our fundamental rights are merely granted by the state, then they can be taken away by the state. What is more, the state would have no moral compunction not to rob us of our rights. The state is not particularly moral or special or better than people. The state is people. If they don’t have some larger, higher moral code that guides them, then assumptions about what constitutes the “good” are, at least to some degree, arbitrary. Absent an immutable standard, why wouldn’t the law of the jungle rule? In nature, predators prey on the weak. Can we honestly convince ourselves that people are better than that? Some are, sure. But many are not.

Without an absolute law that transcends the whims of man, the very concept of “rights” metastasizes into a definition having more to do with the current and often capricious preference of the majority. Oppressed minorities have long found comfort (and, in fact, seized the moral high ground) by pointing out that there is a greater law, a universal sense of right and wrong, that transcends the will of the majority.

The majority can be wrong. The majority can be in the wrong. History is littered with examples of the folly of man-made law, of man-made injustice. (This is not to say people haven’t done terrible things in the name of God — they have!)

Consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail“: “We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights,” he wrote. “To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

More and more, the secular left seems to want to entrust human law to always be just. That’s fine when it is. But what happens when it isn’t?

Originally published at TheWeek.com.

Written by Bill Bumpas

An author and philosopher says CNN host Chris Cuomo needs a remedial lesson in American history after suggesting that America’s laws come from man, not from a Creator.

Cuomo made the comment February 12 during a testy interview with Roy Moore, the Alabama Supreme Court justice who is defying a federal judge’s order that is allowing homosexual “marriage” to be recognized in the state.

Dr. Jay Richards, a writer, speaker and Catholic University of America research professor, suggests that Justice Moore (pictured at right) made a good counter-point during the interview by bringing up the Dred Scott case, which ruled in 1857 that slaves were not U.S. citizens.

“Which everyone now recognizes was an injustice,” Richards notes. “But how can you say a law determined by the Supreme Court was unjust unless you had a standard that transcended the laws of the land?”

That was Moore’s legal point to Cuomo, Richards explains, which is that laws, although written by men, “have to be founded ultimately on the laws of God – on the natural law that God has put into the created order.”

According to the CNN transcript, Moore asked Cuomo if he would have honored the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision or defied it on the grounds it was unconstitutional.

Cuomo refused to answer even after the justice pointed out he was dodging the question.

The interview included Cuomo suggesting that Moore, who is a Christian, is making legal decisions based on religion without allowing different views that disagree.

“Is that a fair suggestion?” Cuomo asked.

“No, that’s not a fair suggestion,” Moore replied. He then described a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. Ramsey, in which the justices ruled that marriage and family are based on the marriage of one man and one woman in a state of matrimony. Other state courts have also agreed with that opinion, he said.

“Naturally it existed hundreds and even thousands of years before the United States even came into existence,” Moore, speaking of natural marriage, told the CNN anchor.

“Right,” Cuomo replied,” but we are a nation of laws and not just God’s law.”

Moore went on to quote the Declaration of Independence and its reference to “unalienable rights,” which are freedoms not given by man – and therefore can’t be taken away – but are entrusted to the government to defend.

“They’re unalienable because they can’t be taken away and they can’t be mandated on the state in this instance,” Moore told Cuomo.

“That’s what Christians think. That’s what the American Founders think,” Richards tells OneNewsNow. “To argue for things like human rights and human equality, you need something that stands outside of the laws of men and judges them just or unjust.”

Cuomo also suggested that “times have changed” after Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment to ensure legal marriage is defined by the normal definition.

Moore pointed out that 81 percent of Alabama voters approved the ballot measure in 2006.

“They haven’t changed their opinion,” he replied. “The only thing that’s changed is that one federal judge has come in and tried to force upon this state something which she cannot do. Her opinion is not law.”

Originally Published at OneNewsNow.com