We are often led to believe that it is the Christian thing to do to keep the southern border open. But is that really the case? This question is all the more acute in our nation’s battle against the spread of COVID-19.

President Biden is acting as if there were one standard in dealing with COVID for law-abiding American citizens and another standard for those who break the law—as in the example of the illegal aliens streaming through our porous southern border. Gary Bauer in his End of Day Report (7/29/21) notes:

“While the CDC is forcing vaccinated Americans to mask up again, and the big teachers’ unions are suggesting our schools might not reopen in the fall, Biden is leaving our southern border wide open. Six thousand illegal aliens are pouring across the southern border each and every day….These migrants are untested. They’re unvaccinated.  Many are refusing to take the COVID vaccines. And many are infected with COVID.” Furthermore, he reports that at least 50,000 migrants have been released throughout the country. And outbreaks of COVID are being reported in border detention facilities.

Dr. William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, wrote an open letter in late July to the Secretary for Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra: “According to recent whistleblowers, children living in HHS migrant shelters are living in subhuman conditions….After enduring a long, arduous journey, these children are sent to camps where Covid is running rampant. In the girls’ tents, lice is left untreated while the boys turn riotous because of the poor conditions they are forced to endure during their detainment at HHS facilities.”

Meanwhile, Governor Greg Abbot of Texas is trying to close the border—in part to stop the spread of COVID—and yet he’s getting direct resistance from the Biden administration. The Associated Press (7/30/21) reports:

“The Biden administration sued Texas…to prevent state troopers from stopping vehicles carrying migrants on grounds that they may spread COVID-19, warning that the practice would exacerbate problems amid high levels of crossings on the state’s border with Mexico.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, tasked by Biden to head the border crisis, says we have to address the “root causes” of why these people are coming before we can seal the borders. One may well ask, “Why is that our burden?” And besides, that could take forever. It’s like saying that before we can administer first aid to a shooting victim, we have to solve the crime first.

The founders of America made it clear when they created the Constitution that their goals were to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Clearly, Biden’s open borders violate many of these key goals.

Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, says,

“Open borders is national suicide. Polls show us that 170 million people in Latin America would like to come to the United States. I don’t blame them, if I lived in one of those countries, I’d want to come here too. But we cannot absorb 170 million people.”

Such an overrun of our country could ultimately cause a collapse into anarchy.

Dave Kubal, CEO and president of Intercessors for America—a group dedicated to praying for our country—notes, “We are a nation of immigrants….I completely believe in an immigration system, but it has to be legal…94% of those people that come across the border, don’t show up for their amnesty case, and so they’re just living illegally in the United States of America.”

But aren’t open borders compassionate? Gary Bauer once told me, “To suggest that because God loves all human beings including migrants, that the United States must open its borders and allow literally millions of people to walk into the country would mean that God was endorsing the end of America as we know it. This country can’t support and pay for millions of millions of people coming into the country.”

But, again, aren’t open borders the Christian position? In his book, We Will Not Be Silenced, Pastor Erwin Lutzer writes, “I reject the notion that those of us who believe in secure borders are racist and lack compassion….without enforced border control, we have in effect, lost our country. The long-term consequences are devastating.”

The left often chafes at the idea of securing the border—although I’m sure these same people lock their own doors at night. How can our country be safe and secure if the borders are wide open? Isn’t it more compassionate to keep the borders closed, especially at a time when many illegal aliens are dying or getting sick in the migration—and especially as we are experiencing new and perilous strains of COVID?

In a May 12 appearance before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), repeatedly denied U.S. law banned partial birth abortions. The problem? U.S. law does ban partial birth abortions and Becerra himself even voted against the law.

U.S. Code § 1531 which prohibits partial-birth abortions is the result of Congressional passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Act, “Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

At the hearing, U.S. Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) asked Becerra if he believed partial-birth abortions were illegal to which the HHS Secretary replied, “We will continue to make sure we follow the law. Again, with due respect, there is no medical term like partial-birth abortion and so I would probably have to ask you what you mean by that to describe what is allowed by the law. But Roe v. Wade is very clear, settled precedent and a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health and we will make sure we enforce the law and protect those rights.”

The law defines “a ‘partial-birth abortion’ as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother’s body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother’s body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”

Next, Bilirakis asked Becerra if he agreed with the law banning partial-birth abortions.

Becerra responded, “Again, as I said there is no law that deals specifically with the term partial-birth abortion. We have clear precedent in the law on the rights that women have to reproductive health care.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), decried Becerra’s duplicity in a media release. She stated, “During his confirmation hearings, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about his stance on partial-birth abortion – when an unborn child is partially delivered and then killed – deflecting with repeated claims that he would ‘follow the law’ as head of HHS. Now the top health official in America, Becerra outright denies the existence of a law banning partial-birth abortion since 2003.”

“Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic,” the head of the national pro-life group pointed out. “As a freshman congressman, he voted against the ban. This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history. It should not be hard to recognize that partially delivering a baby and then suctioning his or her brain is not only illegal, but utterly inhumane.”

The questioning Dannenfelser referred to came from U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) regarding the vote Becerra cast while a Democrat representative from California, prior to serving as the state’s attorney general.

Romney asked Becerra, “Most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?”

To which Becerra indirectly replied, “I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue and I respect that. As Attorney General my job has been to follow the law and make sure that others are following the law. … I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you’re gonna have a healthy life.”

According to Dannenfelser, a related Act is being blocked by Democrats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In April, U.S. Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) filed a discharge petition demanding a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 619). However, if 218 representatives sign the discharge petition, it would force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House.

“The bill would ensure that babies born alive during failed abortions receive the same medical care that would be afforded a premature infant born at the same age,” she noted.

Written by Greg Burt

Joe Biden has announced his intent to nominate California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But Becerra raises deep concerns among religious conservatives fighting to protect their First Amendment free speech and religious liberty rights. They are leary of Becerra because he defended the anti-free speech California law (AB 775), struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, that forced pro-life care centers to promote state-sponsored abortions. They are also alarmed over comments he made before the state Assembly three years ago when he said religious liberty is only for “individuals,” not “institutions.”

California Family Council President Jonathan Keller had this to say about the nomination. “On November 7, Joe Biden claimed victory in the presidential race, saying ‘we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy.’ But his nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services raises grave concerns,” Keller said. “The Secretary of HHS is one of the most important positions in the federal government. But Mr. Becerra is a radical ideologue who rejects First Amendment protections for religious organizations, even earning a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s hard to see how nominating such an activist is consistent with Mr. Biden’s pledge to be a president for all Americans.”

Becerra made his views on religious liberty known in response to questions from California Assemblyman James Gallagher during his confirmation hearing for California Attorney General on January 10, 2017. Gallagher asked Becerra what he thought about AB 775 and another proposed bill, SB 1146, which would have forced religious universities to change their housing policies and moral behavior codes to avoid punishment.

“On religious protections, the protection for religion is for the individual,” Becerra explained.  “I think it is important to distinguish between protections that you are affording to the individual to exercise his or her religion freely, versus protections you are giving to some institution or entity who is essentially bootstrapping the first amendment protections on behalf of somebody else.”

Gallagher took great exception to Becerra’s statement saying it reflected a “fundamental misunderstanding of the freedom of religion and freedom of association.” Gallagher expressed his objections on the floor of the State Assembly when he explained why he opposed Becerra’s nomination as California’s next Attorney General.

“The freedom of religion and the First Amendment applies just as much to the mosque as it does to the Muslim; it applies just as much to the gurdwara as it does to the Sikh; it applies just as much to the church as it does to the Christian,” Gallagher said.  “It applies just as much to religious non-profits, universities, and places of education. Their religious rights need to be protected just as much.”

Watch the full Gallagher/Becerra exchange here.

This article was originally published at CaliforniaFamily.org.

It’s dangerous to paint with a broad brush. I think we do that too often when we, as conservatives, go after the press for media bias. Many times when I see conservative leaders decry media bias, I ask “was that a biased story, or were you just unprepared for the interview?”

Now that’s not to say media bias isn’t real – everyone knows that the majority of the press comes from a liberal perspective.  Even CNN’s Jake Tapper has admitted that media bias is real, and Mark Leibovich of the New York Times agrees that most of the media is center-left.

One of the most obvious examples of media bias shined through in the last few weeks.

Here’s the situation: You have two high profile state Attorney Generals. Both have clear and distinct ideologies:

Attorney General #1 is a conservative.

Attorney General #2 is a liberal.

As such, they work with and receive donations from organizations that support their ideologies.

When Attorney General #1 is making national news, these ties are reported in the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, etc, etc. When Attorney General #2 is in the news, these ties are conspicuously left out. You get one guess on which one is the conservative…

If you guessed the Attorney General #1, you win!

Attorney General #1 is Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma Attorney General, who is now President Trump’s head of the EPA (a great selection in my opinion). As Oklahoma Attorney General, Pruitt sued the EPA more than a dozen times because, under President Obama, the agency continually issued unlawful regulations on states and businesses.

The coal and gas industries Obama was attempting to regulate were supportive of these lawsuits, and therefore, supported Pruitt. I think most people would agree that it’s noteworthy and good journalism for the media to report on Pruitt’s ties with the oil and gas industry as he’s taking on a job like this. This certainly doesn’t disqualify him, but it’s relevant information.

Meanwhile… in California. Two Attorney Generals have investigated David Daleiden and The Center for Medical Progress. Daleiden is the undercover journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby-body parts.

Yet instead of going after Planned Parenthood for their inhumane business practices, the California AG’s have turned their wrath on Daleiden: first raiding his home, and now pressing charges.

The two California Attorney Generals Kamala Harris (who is now a U.S. Senator) and Xavier Becerra have received tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Planned Parenthood and other backers of the abortion industry.

Yet when this story broke in the Associated Press, this detail was left out. Don’t you think it’s a little relevant that the person pressing charges against Daleiden received campaign contributions from the organization that was embarrassed and exposed by his reporting?

Apparently none of the major media outlets did. Showcasing once again why trust in the media is at an all time low.

Read more:  62% in U.S.: News media has party favorites