I’m a Bible-believing Christian first, a conservative second and, sometimes, with rapidly dwindling frequency, a Republican third (but only when the Grand Old Party is behaving itself).

Although the GOP’s RINO establishment still controls its legislative reins, I’m mildly encouraged by some recent developments at the Republican National Committee (RNC) level. It seems that under the leadership of Chairman Reince Priebus, the party is moving – at least to some degree – back toward its historical conservative platform moorings.

It’s a popular refrain among “moderate” Republicans and libertine libertarians that the GOP “must give up the fight on ‘social issues’” (i.e., gun rights, religious freedom, protecting life and defending legitimate marriage and the natural family).

If the GOP follows through and abandons these transcendent conservative values, it’s done once and for all. The Republican Party had better run, not walk, back toward these conservative platform principles; otherwise Democrats will rule in perpetuity. The “progressive” juggernaut will finish off an America it has already maimed beyond recognition.

As I’ve noted before, Ronald Reagan often spoke of a “three-legged stool” that undergirds what I call “complete conservatism.” The legs symbolize a strong national defense, strong free-market principles and strong traditional social values. For the stool to remain upright, it must be supported by all three legs. If you snap off even one leg, the stool collapses under its own weight.

A Republican, for instance, who is conservative on social and national defense issues but liberal on fiscal issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative socialist.

A Republican who is conservative on fiscal and social issues but liberal on national defense issues is not a complete conservative. He is a quasi-conservative dove.

By the same token, a Republican who is conservative on fiscal and national defense issues but liberal on social issue – such as abortion, homosexual activism or the Second Amendment – is not a complete conservative. He is a socio-liberal libertarian.

Karl Rove represents the embodiment of this kind of mushy moderate false pragmatism – a Democrat-lite mindset embraced by the GOP’s socio-liberal establishment. If you run into Karl and his ilk, don’t forget to thank them for President Bob Dole, President John McCain and President Mitt Romney.

Indeed, if the Republican Party ever hopes to occupy the Oval Office again, it’s going to have to nominate a complete conservative and adopt a legislative agenda that reflects the values shared by the tens-of-millions who make up the GOP’s complete conservative base. I don’t mean by simply paying empty lip service either. I mean through unwavering legislative practice.

As Mitt Romney might tell you, if the base ain’t fired up, the base ain’t going to the polls.

In 2012, the GOP approved a platform that, at least in writing, re-established a firm position on – as they say – “guns, ‘gays’ and abortion.” It’s now time for the Republican Party to stand firm atop that platform. As a complete conservative who shudders at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton, I’m cautiously optimistic that some in leadership are beginning to scale the platform once more. The RNC, under Priebus, has recently taken steps that seem to indicate the message of the GOP’s majority base is finally getting through.

For example, the Washington Times recently reported: “In an unprecedented show of opposition to abortion, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is delaying the start of the party’s annual winter meeting so he and other committee members can join the (Jan. 22) March for Life on the Mall. …”

“‘I saw that there was a real interest among a significant portion of our members to attend and support the Rally for Life,’ Mr. Priebus said in an email to the Times. ‘This is a core principle of our party. It was natural for me to support our members and our principles,’” he said.

Moreover, this past Thursday was National Religious Freedom Day. In recent years we’ve seen religious freedom under attack at unprecedented levels through things like the HHS abortion mandate, so-called “gay marriage” and “sexual orientation” laws that target religious business owners. The RNC released the following statement indicating that the GOP intends to defend religious freedom:

“Today we celebrate National Religious Freedom Day and honor the vision of our founders, who ensured every American would have the right to ‘the free exercise’ of his or her faith. As a party, Republicans are committed to preserving and defending the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that future generations will always enjoy religious freedom in America.”

This move back toward the GOP’s conservative platform has made some socio-liberal Republicans unhappy. In fact, it recently drove homosexual RINO Jimmy LaSalvia, the founder of GOProud, a tiny “gay activist” outfit, to announce that he was defecting from the party.

LaSalvia told Time magazine that, “he could no longer take his own party’s refusal to stand up to bigotry: he was leaving the Republican Party and had registered as an Independent.”

By refusing to “stand up to bigotry,” of course, LaSalvia, like all “gay” activists, means that he can no longer abide the Republican platform’s support for religious freedom and pro-family values.

LaSalvia’s frustration and defection bode well for the Republican Party in general. It means that the GOP is moving slowly – ever so slowly – back toward its conservative roots. This is good news indeed. The more conservative this prodigal GOP becomes; the more successful it will be going forward.

Keep it up, Mr. Priebus, and in November your base just might grill up the fatted calf.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute (IFI). Contributions to IFI are tax-deductible and support our educational efforts.

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Action (IFA). Contributions to IFA are not tax-deductible but give us the most flexibility in engaging critical legislative and political issues.

According to Open Doors, an organization whose mission is to strengthen and equip Christians to stand firm for Christ in the most oppressive countries around the world, “Nigeria had a total of 300 confirmed martyrs in 2011, Egypt at least 60 and Iraq 38. Open Doors defines a martyr as one who loses her or his life as a result of identification with Jesus Christ.”

Because of the often overly expansive or elastic use of words like “discrimination,” “oppression,” and “persecution,” Open Doors offers this helpful clarification of what constitutes persecution:

Though it is sometimes difficult to identify the difference between persecution and the everyday inconveniences of living in a world hostile towards Christianity, there are some clear defining factors.

Persecution occurs whenever a believer is denied the protection of religious freedom, prevented from converting to Christianity because of legal or social threats, physically attacked or killed because of their faith, forced to leave their job or home because of the threat of violence, or imprisoned and interrogated for refusing to deny their faith.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research reports that “‘the number of [Christian] martyrs [in the period 2000-2010] was approximately 1 million.'”

In the 2002 Geneva Report, the World Evangelical Alliance estimated that “that there are more than 200 million Christians in the world today who do not have full human rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, simply because they are Christians.”

In light of these tragic statistics, one might think that our government would be as concerned about the martyrdom of Christians as it is about “homophobia” around the world. Last week, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered her speech about exporting liberal American views on homosexuality, President Barack Obama sent out an equally troubling “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies” on the subject of “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.“

In this surprisingly detailed memo, Obama directs “all agencies engaged abroad” to “expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct.” To be crystal clear, he listed the agencies involved in this effort:

the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export Import Bank, the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.

These governmental agencies are then directed to “engage” other international organizations to “bring global attention to LGBT issues.” And then every one of our agencies must “prepare a report within 180 days…and annually thereafter, on their progress,” which will be submitted to the State Department and then transmitted to the president.

I spent some time on the White House website searching for a similar memo directing all agencies engaged abroad to work toward ending the persecution of Christians but found nothing equivalent. Here is the most detailed and feeble public statement that I could find from President Obama on the worldwide persecution of Christians:

We bear witness to those who are persecuted or attacked because of their faith. We condemn the attacks made in recent months against Christians in Iraq and Egypt, along with attacks against people of all backgrounds and beliefs. The United States stands with those who advocate for free religious expression and works to protect the rights of all people to follow their conscience, free from persecution and discrimination.

On Religious Freedom Day, let us reflect on the principle of religious freedom that has guided our Nation forward, and recommit to upholding this universal human right both at home and around the world.

In addressing the Obama Administration’s disparate treatment of Christians and homosexuals, I don’t seek to pit one group against another. Rather, I hope to illustrate that the current administration is concerned less about human rights violations and more about proselytizing and political strategics. Evidence suggests that the current administration cares less about fundamental rights–those that are articulated in our Constitution–and more about normalizing disordered sexual impulses via the specious use of civil rights arguments and about the deep pockets and political power of homosexual activists.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email to President Obama to ask him to stop playing politics with Human Rights and encourage him to speak out about persecuted Christians around the world.

The moral assumptions of President Obama about the nature and morality of homosexuality are not only false but also offensive to many Americans as well as many people around the world. He has no right to use taxpayer resources to try to impose his controversial policies, unproven assumptions, and theologically unorthodox beliefs on the entire world.

• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to promulgate arguable assumptions about the nature of homosexuality (i.e., that homosexuality is biologically determined, immutable, and analogous to race) and about the morality of homosexual acts (i.e., that volitional homosexual acts are morally equivalent to heterosexual acts).
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources that imply that moral disapproval of volitional homosexual acts constitutes illegitimate discrimination or hatred.
• Americans should demand that our government refrain from issuing public statements or using public resources to undermine the moral beliefs of citizens of other countries or to undermine their opposition to “same-sex marriage.”

Finally, Americans should urge our leaders to use the resources and influence of the United States to combat the persecution of Christians around the world.

Make A Tax-Deductible Donation

From IFI’s beginning, we have been motivated by love for our neighbor. We care about marriage and strong families because people matter.

This is why Illinois Family Institute is…

a voice in the culture where the need is great for strong families;

in the halls of government where priorities for families need to be articulated;

in the education arena where true ideas and beliefs are either affirmed or undermined.

Would you like to join with us? Your financial support makes you part of this work to help change the conditions in Illinois for the better.

Let me encourage you to take a moment and make an online donation to Illinois Family Institute. A gift of any size will make a difference, particularly as we approach the year’s end.

You can be part of this positive change by partnering with us today!

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376

Evil men don’t understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5

On Dec. 6, 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in honor of International Human Rights Day which is celebrated on Dec. 10, the date in 1948 when the United Nations formally adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But as we should have expected from a representative of the fervently pro-perversion Obama Administration, Clinton used the occasion to promulgate unproven, liberal assumptions about homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

With the usual cunning of the Left, Clinton begins her speech by referring to the “beating, terrorizing, and executing” of homosexuals, but then with some skillful bait-and-switch rhetoric, she starts talking about undefined “discrimination.” Such a speech would be justified if Clinton were actually concerned only with real human rights abuses such as draconian laws that call for the execution of homosexuals or for acts of violence ignored by police. But anyone familiar with the incoherent world of “progressivism,” understands that moral disapproval of homosexual acts becomes “discrimination” which ineluctably results in “bullying” or “terrorizing.”

Clinton’s repeated use of the absurd comparison of race to homosexuality reveals that intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom. Even really smart people often hold ignorant and foolish ideas. Whereas race is 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, and has no behavioral implications that are amenable to moral evaluation, homosexuality is not biologically determined, is in some cases changeable, and is constituted by volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral evaluation. Someone should ask Clinton to explain the ways she believes race is analogous to homosexuality.

Clinton asserts that “Because we are human, we therefore have rights. And because we have rights, governments are bound to protect them.” Of course, she spent little time explaining exactly what rights she believes all people are entitled to because they’re human. She referred ambiguously to “the full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity,” [emphasis added] which sounds benign enough. To progressives, however, such noble phrases don’t mean only freedom from involuntary servitude, free speech, or the right to vote. To homosexual activists and their ideological allies, the “full measure of liberty, the full experience of dignity, and the full benefits of humanity” demands, for example, that they be given the unilateral right to reconstruct the legal definition of marriage.

Since Clinton can’t appeal to reason, she pulls on the heartstrings of those in her audience for whom “feelings” trump moral reason: “We need to ask ourselves, ‘How would it feel if it were a crime to love the person I love?'” If there are laws somewhere in the world that criminalize “love,” I haven’t heard of them. There are countries around the world that have unjust marital laws, but marital laws — just and unjust — prohibit acts, not feelings.

Here in the U.S., we have laws that prohibit polyamorists from marrying all the people they love, but there are no laws that criminalize their love. We have laws that prohibit close blood relatives from marrying, but there are no laws that criminalize their love. And most states have just and reasonable marital laws that prohibit men from marrying men and women from marrying women, but there are no laws that criminalize their love.

Clinton alludes to the Obama Administration’s troubling intention to withhold foreign aid from countries that don’t share the moral views of American “progressives” on homosexuality and cross-dressing and of the Obama administration’s creation of a Global Equality Fund which will use $3 million of taxpayer money to fund homosexuality-affirming efforts around the world. Peter Sprigg aptly describes this as “cultural imperialism.” The Obama Administration is using our taxes to disseminate non-factual, fallacious moral, philosophical, and political propositions throughout the world.

Clinton shared that she has experienced a “deepening” of her convictions about homosexuality as she has “devoted more thought to it, engaged in dialogues and debates, and established personal and professional relationships with people who are gay.” In the past, Secretary Clinton has been open about her Christian faith, and in this speech, she shared that her “religious belief and practice is a vital source of meaning and identity, and fundamental to who” she is. One wonders if in all her dialogues, debates, and thinking, she ever seriously studied the work of scholars throughout the history of the church on the topic of homosexuality. Since prior to the late 20th Century, no Old Testament or New Testament scholar affirmed what some refer to as “gay theology,” it’s surprising to see intelligent people like Clinton (and Obama) embracing what many of the best scholars, including contemporary biblical scholars, would consider heresy.

Clinton concluded with these words: “As it has happened so many times before, opinion will converge once again with the truth, the immutable truth, that all persons are created free and equal in dignity and rights.” Ever the diplomat, Clinton implies without explicitly stating that her beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality are “immutable truths.” Whereas it is true that all humans are equal in worth and dignity, it is not true that all beliefs and behavioral choices are equal in worth or dignity. The troubling notion that permeates Clinton’s speech is that a society that honors the dignity and liberty of all must embrace the ontological and moral beliefs of homosexuals.

For progressives, powerful, persistent feelings and volitional acts — at least powerful, persistent homosexual feelings and acts — are constitutive of identity and inherently moral. For progressives, to believe such feelings are disordered and such acts immoral represents an act of illegitimate discrimination against persons. But Christians understand that in this fallen world, our feelings are disordered, our will perverted, and our intellect corrupted — hence the need for laws.

And on that point IFI agrees with Secretary Clinton who accurately stated that “progress comes from changes in laws…. Laws have a teaching effect.” The question is, will America have laws that embody and teach truth — or not?