Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been doing a great job at National Review Online debunking Judge Richard Posner’s opinion striking down the Indiana and Wisconsin marriage laws for a panel of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on September 4 (see here, here, here, and here).

I will note here just one thing that jumped out at me in both the oral arguments and the opinion. Judge Posner makes the following argument (pp. 22-23 of the opinion):

Consider now the emotional comfort that having married parents is likely to provide to children adopted by same-sex couples. Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be). Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers. If a child’s same-sex parents are married, however, the parents can tell the child truthfully that an adult is permitted to marry a person of the opposite sex, or if the adult prefers as some do a person of his or her own sex, but that either way the parents are married and therefore the child can feel secure in being the child of a married couple. Conversely, imagine the parents having to tell their child that same-sex couples can’t marry, and so the child is not the child of a married couple, unlike his classmates.

Judge Posner’s set-up of this hypothetical situation sounds like a demonstration of how same-sex “marriage” couldharm children raised by same-sex couples:

Suppose such a child comes home from school one day and reports to his parents that all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be). Children, being natural conformists, tend to be upset upon discovering that they’re not in step with their peers.

Perhaps it is a function of his long judicial career, but Judge Posner seems to think that it is entirely the law which will determine whether such a child experiences “comfort” or distress from such a situation. If the law says that the two women or two men raising the child cannot be “married,” the child will experience distress. But if the law says that the two women or two men raising the child are “married,” then they will experience “emotional comfort,” presumably from the knowledge that their family is just like that of their friends.

Except, even in Judge Posner’s own framing of the situation, it is not the absence of a marriage certificate that makes the children feel different from his peers. It is that “all his classmates have a mom and a dad, while he has two moms (or two dads, as the case may be).” If the child’s “two moms” or “two dads” are permitted to “marry” — well, “all his classmates” will still have “a mom and a dad,” while the child in question will still be “not in step with [his] peers” because he will still not have a mom and a dad!

Judge Posner is naïve in the extreme if he thinks that such a child would care more about whether his caregivers have a certificate from the government than about whether his family includes something as fundamental on a human level as a mother and a father.

This article was originally posted at FRCblog.com.

On Tuesday August 27, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals judge, Richard Posner, grilled attorneys from Wisconsin and Indiana who were defending true marriage. Posner’s noxious bias dripped unnoticed by Slate writer, homosexual Mark Joseph Stern, who sycophantically described Posner as possessed of an “unapologetic bias toward reality and logic.” Riiight…

While “progressives” took pleasure in the judicial demeanor of Posner, describing his “withering bench slaps” and “string of brutal retorts” as “exhilarating, satisfying, hilarious, and fun”  “schadenfreude,” law professor Josh Blackman described Posner as a “bully from the bench.”

Perhaps Stern and Posner should spend some time thinking about the logical outworkings of these “progressive” propositions upon which the legal redefinition of marriage depend:

• Marriage has no inherent connection to “gender” (aka biological sex).

• Marriage has no inherent connection to procreative potential.

• Marriage is solely constituted by love.

Those, I believe, fairly summarize the assumptions or propositions that animate the political Left. So, what are the logical implications of these non-objective assumptions?

Well, if marriage has no inherent connection to either biological sex or reproductive potential, how do “progressives”—most of whom defend marriage as inherently binary—defend their prohibition of plural unions? Where do they derive their notion that marriage is the union of two people? Conservatives have a rational explanation for the number two, an explanation which, by the way, derives from reality. There are two sexes. The sexual union of one member of each sex is the type of union that naturally produces children who have needs and rights that the government has a vested interest in protecting. The government has no interest in ascertaining fertility or in compelling procreation (and certainly no interest in affirming love). Rather, the government has an interest in recognizing, regulating, and promoting the type of relationship that naturally produces children.

What accounts for progressives’ interest in limiting marriage to two people? They certainly can’t appeal to “tradition” since they, like Judge Posner, hold tradition in contempt. And they can’t appeal to the needs and rights of children because they have argued that marriage has no inherent connection to children (which makes it passing strange that Posner spent so much time discussing the needs and rights of children).

And what about the logical implications of the Left’s proposition that marriage is solely constituted by love? Aren’t three, four, or five people capable of loving one another?

Let’s take a closer look at the infamous exchange  between the interrupting interlocutor Posner and Timothy Samuelson, the Wisconsin assistant attorney general tasked with defending marriage:

Posner: What concrete factual arguments do you have against homosexual marriage?

Samuelson: Well, we have, the Burkean argument, that it’s reasonable and rational to proceed slowly.

Posner: That’s the tradition argument. It’s feeble! Look, they could have trotted out Edmund Burke in the Loving case. What’s the difference? [Note: Loving v. Virginia was a 1967 decision striking down bans on interracial marriage]… There was a tradition of not allowing black and whites, and, actually, other interracial couples from marrying. It was a tradition. It got swept aside. Why is this tradition better?

Samuelson: The tradition is based on experience. And it’s the tradition of western culture.

Posner: What experience! It’s based on hate, isn’t it?

Samuelson: No, not at all, your honor.

Posner: You don’t think there’s a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?

What is most notable but least discussed—at least by “progressives”—is how Posner twisted the argument. Samuelson appealed to tradition in defending marriage as inherently sexually complementary. Posner countered by citing bans on interracial marriage as examples of when tradition was wrong. Then Samuelson argued that tradition (i.e., the traditional view of marriage as sexually complementary) is based on experience, and Posner, either due to a failure in close listening or to being deafened by his own bias, declaimed, “What experience! It’s based on hate isn’t it?” Samuelson, referring to the traditional view of marriage as sexually complementary, disagreed with Posner regarding this tradition being based on hate. Posner responded with the non sequitur: “You don’t think there’s a history of rather savage discrimination against homosexuals?” Posner’s question was utterly irrelevant, since Samuelson clearly was not referring to the “tradition” of banning interracial marriage.

Was Posner suggesting that tradition is absolutely and always devoid of value and at odds with truth? Are our current traditions devoid of value and at odds with truth? Does the fecklessness of some traditions invalidate all traditions? Shouldn’t we discriminate between good and bad traditions? Shouldn’t we allow for the possibility that some traditions have value in the same way that some legal precedents have value despite the fact that others are informed by ignorance, irrationality, and even hatred?

The good news is the best arguments in favor of retaining sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage have little to do with tradition and everything to do with logic and reality. Unfortunately, these arguments were not well-articulated by the two attorneys defending marriage, which is a problem all too common among many conservative attorneys, politicians, and pundits.

Since Posner suggested that bans on interracial marriage are analogous to so-called bans on same-sex “marriage,” a further discussion of the weakness of his analogy would have been helpful. Such a discussion would lead to the larger question that too few in society—including Posner—discuss, which is, “What is marriage?”

Posner, who Stern reveres for his grounding in logic and reality, asked this demagogic question of Samuelson:

Think back to when you were six. Suppose you’ve been adopted by same-sex parents. You come home one day from school, and you say, “You know, all the other kids in my class, they have a mom and a dad. I just have two dads (or two moms), and you know, what’s that about?” And suppose the parents say, “Well, you know, in our society an adult can marry a person of the opposite sex or a person of the same sex. But you know it’s marriage in both cases. So, your classmates, their parents are married. Your parents are married.”

….Now contrast that with a situation where the parents say to the child, “Well, you know, we’re your parents, but we’re not allowed to get married.” Which do you think is better for the psychological health and welfare of this child: to have a married same-sex couple or an unmarried?

What is remarkable is the absence of logic in Posner’s languid, intellectually vacant question, which is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Without a single argument or a definition of health and welfare (or their corollary, “harm”), Posner implies that the harm done to this child rests with marriage laws rather than the adults who have adopted this child, intentionally denying him or her a mother or a father.

Posner’s hypothetical scenario ignored the more essential and prior harm done to children acquired by homosexuals. Here’s a question for Posner: Which would be better psychologically for a child, to be raised by a mother and father or to be denied either a mother or father?

Posner was suggesting that marriage must be redefined by jettisoning the most fundamental feature of marriage (i.e., sexual complementarity) so that young children don’t feel bad about the volitional choices the adults raising them have made. The answer to the problem of children being denied a mother and father, however, is not to create a legal fiction that treats marriage as if it has no connection to sexual complementarity.

Further, Posner’s astonishing “argument,” if consistently applied, would preclude the expression of all moral propositions that make children “feel bad,” including any moral propositions codified in law.

The issue that Posner leaps over is that marriage actually has a nature that society merely recognizes. Society does not create marriage out of whole cloth. Most “progressives” even acknowledge that truth every time they assert that marriage is composed of two people. They believe that one of the inherent and immutable constituent features of marriage is its binariness.

Conservatives agree with “progressives” that marriage has a nature. We simply disagree on what that nature entails. Conservatives argue that sexual complementarity is the central constituent feature of marriage without which a relationship is not a marriage. In fact, it is the twoness of the sexes that accounts for the twoness of marriage in both reality and the law.

Posner goes on to say that “Indiana provides, and the federal government is carried along with it, very substantial and tangible benefits to a married couple. Now, don’t the children of a married couple, whether same-sex or opposite sex, don’t they benefit? The married parents are better off. They have all sorts of benefits….Doesn’t that make the kids better off?”

Here’s where Posner’s reductive argument fails: First, though children may benefit financially, they are harmed in other ways. Second, the financial benefits that would redound to the children of “married” same-sex couples no more justify the jettisoning of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage than would the financial benefits that would redound to children being raised by siblings or polyamorists justify the jettisoning of the criterion regarding blood kinship or numbers of partners from the legal definition of marriage.

From his high and mighty perch, Posner was able to pose questions without ever having to answer any. Here are slightly altered forms of the questions that Posner asked of the two attorneys defending marriage and over which his fans slaver. Perhaps Posner could publicly share his responses:

1. There’s been a tradition of banning plural marriages and marriages between siblings. Those bans are based on hate, aren’t they? You don’t think there’s a history of rather savage discrimination against polyamorists, polygamists, and siblings who love each other?

2. Isn’t allowing plural marriages or incestuous marriages better for the psychological health and welfare of children being raised by polygamists, polyamorists, or close blood relatives (whether homosexual or heterosexual)?

3. Why do you prefer adoption by couples to adoption by groups of more than two? Why do you prefer adoption by people not closely related by blood to homosexual siblings who love each other? Why punish children whose parents happen to be polyamorists or close blood relatives? Why do you want children being raised by polyamorists to be worse off, because they don’t have the financial and psychological benefits of having married parents?

4. Isn’t it much better for kids to be adopted? If you allow plural marriage, you’re going to have more adopters, right? You should be wanting to enlist people as adopters.

5. Who is being helped by bans on plural unions? How is society helped by plural union bans? No one is trying to force polyamorists into binary marriage. So, what is the harm of allowing these people to marry those they love? Does it hurt binary marriage?

I will add this question: Why should marriage be limited to people in relationships characterized by romantic/erotic love as opposed to platonic love or no love at all? How would society be harmed if two adult brothers in a platonic relationship were to “marry”? If these two brothers were to adopt children, how would their children be harmed if they were to be able to marry? How would society be harmed?

Posner’s words oozed arrogance and ignorance. Just another drop of arsenic into the water that America drinks like Kool-Aid.

 Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet
With Eric Metaxas on Sept. 19th!

Early Bird Specials Expire on August 18th!

Written by Bob Ellis

What was that phrase the founders used to describe the source of our liberty and our nation’s political foundation? “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

David Barton and Rick Green recently (Aug. 7) discussed this on Wallbuilders Live, and it was a show every American should hear.

If you’ve ever discussed the legal foundations of our nation with a liberal, you have almost certainly heard them claim that the Declaration of Independence means nothing whatsoever in 2014. Of course, they’d like very much to make the same claim for the U.S. Constitution, but there are still too many people who know too much (however little that “too much” may be) for them to get away with that whopper. But most people don’t know how to deal with the liberal protest that, although the Declaration of Independence clearly states that our rights come from God (not government, not the majority, not poll results, etc.), that doesn’t really mean anything because (in their minds) the Declaration of Independence was written before the U.S. Constitution.

What few Americans on either side of the ideological aisle know is that YES, the Declaration of Independence IS a part of our laws. In fact, you will find in the United States Code (our nation’s law database). Our nation’s organic laws are listed first, and the Declaration of Independence is first among them. It doesn’t get much more foundational than that (except perhaps the Bible, which is the document from which the founders gained the understanding that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”).

As important as this fact is, this is not the only proof that if we are under the United States Constitution (and we are, despite the loathing of the Left), we are also under the Declaration of Independence. As Barton and Green discussed on Wallbuilders Live:

1. 1. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution dates itself not only based on the Christian calendar (“in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven“–icky to Leftists dedicated to the fantasy of government divorced from God) but dates itself back to the Declaration of Independence:
   1. “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth“
   2. Presidential acts (even those signed by President Barack Obama, who loathes our nation’s foundation like no president before him) are still to this day dated “in the Year of our Lord” as well as the year of our nation’s independence.
2. The enabling acts of the states testify to this. Enabling acts are the acts by which territories became states, and they set forth the conditions under which a territory may become a state. States are required constitutionally to implement a republican form of government (sorry, no dictatorships, politburos or oligarchies allowed). Their form of government also “shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Notice that the states are required to be in compliance with not only the U.S. Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. Examples: Arizona, Nevada, South Dakota.
3. The U.S. Constitution cannot be understood without the Declaration of Independence. In other words, many key parts of the U.S. Constitution are corollaries (i.e. they answer) to the grievances or problems brought up in the Declaration of Independence.
   1. Article 1 Section 5 where it says “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting,” this cures or answers the fourth problem or grievance raised in the Declaration of Independence which said: “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”  In other words, why does our constitution do what it does?  Because of the problems (or abuses against our God-given rights endowed upon us by the aforementioned Creator) identified in the Declaration.  You cannot understand the meaning and intent of the Constitution without the context of the Declaration.
   2. Grievance 5 and 6 of the Declaration are answered by Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution
   3. Grievance 7 of the Declaration is resolved by Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 4
   4. Grievance 8 of the Declaration is answered by Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 9.

So since the Declaration of Independence is the original source document from which all other U.S. laws (including the Constitution) get their authority, from where does the Declaration get its authority?  Remember, it already told us: The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (sorry, God-haters).

So what is “natural law”? As Sir William Blackstone said, it is basically God’s moral law for humanity:

Man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. This law of nature…dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.

Sir Edward Coke described it similarly:

The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.

Natural law takes precedent over all other law. As Blackstone further elaborated:

Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true, a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy: for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to the former. To instance in the case of murder: this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it do not at all increase its moral guilt, or add any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae (in the court of conscience) to abstain from its perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we, are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.

If you’re a God-hating Leftist, no one is forcing you to believe in God because of this truth, and you don’t have to like this reality…but you aren’t entitled to pretend it isn’t reality.  And if you insist that our nation’s foundation should go…well, you invite what would naturally come if you tried to yank the foundation out from under any structure.

Our natural rights come directly from God (our Creator) and were endowed to us before government was instituted.  I know it’s icky for God-haters to consider, but according to that Bible which most of the founders believed in (from which they also recognized those same “inalienable rights”), there was a time when (gasp) there was no government.  Even before there was government, human beings were endowed by their Creator with the right to speak their mind, to defend themselves, etc. Government didn’t give them those rights; their Creator did, as the Declaration of Independence acknowledges.

Our U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our nation (contrary to the contempt shown toward it by liberals).  It’s foundation and the organic law which precedes it is the Declaration of Independence. The foundation of the Declaration of Independence, as the Declaration itself states, is natural law.

So it should be clear to any rational person that the Declaration of Independence is relevant, binding and in force in the United States.

As John Quincy Adams (son of founder John Adams) said on the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of our nation’s first constitutional president:

The revolution itself was a work of thirteen years – and had never been completed until that day. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory of government, then new, not as a theory, for it had been working itself into the mind of man for many ages, and been especially expounded in the writings of Locke, but had never before been adopted by a great nation in practice.

This article was originally posted at the Barbwire.com website.

The vicious character of Hamas is finally becoming apparent to the world as we all witness them using women and children as shields for their weapons.  This same evil tactic was seen in the Iran-Iraq war and Golda Meir noted of Israel’s opponents in its formative years, “we can forgive them for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children.”

For too long many in the Media have been complicit in covering up the sick reality that Hamas and others in that part of the world are very willing to send children to their deaths in order to shield themselves and their weaponry while portraying Israel as immoral and heartless.  In reality, Israel has had no choice.  If they spared the children shield, they would be overrun.

Has no one noticed that American liberals have been using the same strategy for decades and are now blatantly doing so again with the crisis at the border?  Sadly, the Media are again complicit in the deception.  Just as all Americans recoil at the thought of killing children in war, we are moved by these children’s suffering.  To the casual observer it appears that conservatives are cruel to children because we oppose many of the programs Democrats promote.  However, just as Hamas has been advancing its evil agenda behind a shield of children, so liberals have been steadily advancing their destructive, socialistic objectives behind a shield of children!  Make no mistake: while the liberal agenda does not place children directly in the path of tanks and rifle fire, it is none-the-less destructive to their well-being.  Note the danger they face daily in America’s inner cities where the liberal anti-family agenda has taken root, to say nothing of the fifty million plus unborn killed in the womb!  And multi-generational welfare dependency is immoral, humiliating and soul-destroying.

So long as the only message heard is that conservatives are heartless because we won’t do this or that for the children, we will lose these battles.  Liberals force us to “go through” the children in order to get at their bad programs.  We must focus attention on the sordid character of those who are willing to expose children to horrific dangers in order to further their socialistic political agenda.  It is disgusting to me that liberals are using conservatives’ and other Americans’ kind hearts against us and are not being called on it.  How cynical to on the one hand accuse us of heartlessness while at the same time KNOWING we will be reticent to simply oppose or dismantle their programs once they’re established for fear of hurting the children involved!  Yet, many of these programs, while appearing superficially to be beneficial, on a long-term basis will bring suffering and even death to children!

How ironic that America, the greatest and safest place on earth for children is being systematically destroyed from within to a large degree by the same strategy Hamas and other terrorist groups world-wide have used: children as shields!

It’s time we woke up!

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) and U.S. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) recently introduced the “Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act,” S. 624 in the U.S. Senate and H.R. 5285 in the U.S. House.  This legislation will protect child welfare providers such as faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. It is extremely necessary due to the states that are adopting policies which will require these providers to violate their sincerely-held beliefs by placing children with same-sex couples, effectively forcing them out of business. We saw this happen in Illinois with Catholic Charities.

According to the joint press release:

For decades, adoption and foster care providers – secular, government-operated and faith-based – have worked side-by-side to serve infants, expectant mothers, adoptive and foster families, children, teens and families under economic and emotional pressure. The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2014 would prevent providers of child welfare services from being excluded from offering these services based on their religious beliefs.

Faith-based charities and organizations do an amazing job of administering adoption, foster care and a host of other services. Limiting their work because someone might disagree with what they believe only ends up hurting the families they could be bringing together,” said Enzi. “I’ve worked for years to support bills and ideas that help children find safe, loving and permanent homes. This legislation will help make sure faith-based providers and individuals can continue to work alongside other agencies and organizations, and that adoptive and foster parents have access to providers of their choice.

This bill is about fairness and inclusion. It is about ensuring that everyone who wants to help provide foster or adoptive care to children is able to have a seat at the table,” said Kelly. “Faith-based organizations have historically played a downright heroic role in caring for our nation’s most vulnerable and needy kids. In so many ways their work is unparalleled. There is no good reason why any of these care providers should be disqualified from working with their government to serve America’s families simply because of their deeply-rooted religious beliefs.

Adoption and foster care is intensely personal and emotional for all those concerned.  All participants, infants, children, teens and families involved have benefited from having a range of service options to best suit their emotional, spiritual and financial needs and circumstances, according to Enzi and Kelly.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to help protect our religious freedom by contacting your U.S. Representative as well as U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk. Ask them to please support the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act. Passage of this bill will help ensure that the most vulnerable among us are placed in loving homes that best meet their needs. 

By Rick Santorum

Since the birth of our special needs daughter Bella more than six years ago, my wife Karen and I have become vocal advocates for the rights of the disabled.

That is why we have been so opposed to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities since it first came up in 2012.

If there was anything in the CRPD that would make life better for Bella and others like her, we would be its fiercest champions, but there isn’t.

The United States already has the strongest protections for those with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and proponents of the CRPD say they agree that this treaty does nothing to change things here at home.

Some hope this treaty would encourage other countries to change how they treat their disabled citizens. Unfortunately, one only needs to look around the world for proof of the CRPD’s ineffectiveness. Most of the world has already ratified the treaty, including some of the world’s most brutal dictatorships. There is no one reason why the CRPD has failed as a global tool for aiding the world’s disabled, but it has failed. Having the United States ratify the CRPD will not magically make the treaty effective.

There are many troubling provisions in this treaty. A crucial part uses the same language as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child’s “best interest of the child” standard. It would give the federal government, under U.N. direction, the right to ignore states’ laws on the subjects of family law and child welfare and possibly determine what is best for our disabled children. While some say that would never be enforced, are you willing to make that gamble?

There is not even a definition of “disability” in the CRPD. In fact, the drafters of the CRPD specifically decided to not define disability, and cast disability as an open-ended “evolving concept.” This may some day allow a U.N. panel to take radical perspectives on just what will qualify as a disability.

Despite its defeat in 2012, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., tried to bring it up again in 2013. At that time Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the ranking Republican of the committee, used the hearings to ask some very pointed questions reflecting the concerns of millions of other Americans. After an effort to work with Democrats and the State Department to develop reservations, understandings and declarations designed to quarantine the most troublesome parts of the treaty, Corker announced last December in no uncertain terms that he could no longer support the treaty. He determined that it posed a real threat to our sovereignty, our federalist system and democratic governance in general.

On July 22, the CRPD again went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and it was unfortunately approved by a vote of 12-6. No doubt sensing their days controlling the Senate are numbered, Democrats will once again try to force quick ratification before the full chamber.

The truth is, Menendez and other senators have never made a serious effort to deal with the structural and substantive flaws of the treaty. They have instead falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bond v. United States in June removed any doubt that an international treaty could not run roughshod over United States laws.

They are wrong.

To briefly explain this ruling, the only thing the court did in Bond was reverse the federal criminal conviction of a woman in Pennsylvania who had been convicted under an international chemical weapons ban treaty. The court’s majority opinion did nothing to affirm that an international treaty cannot be the law of our land, and actually avoided the subject altogether.

While all nine justices agreed to reverse her conviction, they did so for very different reasons. Some did so because they found that Congress had overstepped its authority.The conservative wing of the court, however, did so because they believed the court’s treaty power precedent was overbroad, ignored the Constitution’s commitment to limited federal powers and threatened to override other, specifically enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The Obama administration and Senate Democrats are intentionally ignoring the fact that Bond did not change anything because they prefer victory over constitutionality. The reality, however, is that the CRPD remains a poor treaty, leaves too many questions unanswered, and ultimately will not help the world’s disabled population, including Americans with disabilities and our wounded warriors. The benefits are illusory and the risk to our sovereignty is just too great.

At a time when the world is burning, and there are serious foreign policy challenges and threats in every corner of the globe, Democrats should stop wasting precious time promoting a treaty that at best is ineffective and at worst does not serve American interests.

If this treaty ever goes before the full Senate again, I respectfully ask my former colleagues to bury it once and for all.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk today to urge the to OPPOSE this international threat to U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. 

Rick Santorum is the author of “Blue Collar Conservatives” and is a former candidate for president. He served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007 and in the House from 1991 to 1995. Originally posted at RollCall.com.

A U.S. Senate panel has advanced to the full senate a treaty that could pose a danger to parents and to pre-born babies. 

After a contentious hearing this week, the Judiciary Committee advanced the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which one expert says has a nice title but is deceiving.

Will Estrada of the Home School Legal Defense Association says there are three concerns, beginning with an intrusion into national sovereignty. The treaty would change America’s current system to allow “unelected United Nations bureaucrats” to monitor how the United States implements the treaty and advise it, he says.

Estrada also alleges the treaty surrenders the sovereignty of parents to bureaucrats, quoting from Article 7 of the treaty. That portion reads, “In all issues concerning the child with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration.”

In other words, warns Estrada, the treaty could override the authority of parents.

The treaty passed out of committee with a 12-6 vote on Tuesday.

The same treaty received a 13-6 committee vote in 2012, when The Washington Times warned in an editorial that the U.S. could “soon find itself taking orders from international bureaucrats on how to treat people with disabilities.”

Disability news website Disability Scoop credits Home School Legal Defense Association for leading the effort against the treaty but claims more than 800 groups support the treaty.

Citing those groups, the website also claims concerns about sovereignty are “unfounded” and suggests that ratifying it would give the United States a “leadership role in the international community.”

Still another warning from Estrada is that Article 25 in the treaty creates a “right” to abortion, stating that countries that ratify the treaty must ensure “that every person with disabilities gets free sexual and reproductive health services.”

That includes free, UN-guaranteed access to abortion – for the disabled.

The Washington Times editorial from two years ago reported then that Democrats insisted the UN treaty wouldn’t override restrictive U.S. abortion laws. But they rejected an amendment, offered by U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), to exclude abortion from the phrase “sexual and reproductive health.”

Estrada encourages people to contact their state’s two senators and ask for a “Nay” vote when the UN treaty comes up for a vote.

Take ACTION:  Please click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk today to urge the to OPPOSE this international threat to U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. 

This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com.

I am sick to death of writing about Barack the Destroyer. Ever since that cold November day in 2008, when a chill settled into the heart of every American patriot, we have been fighting. Fighting with written word. Fighting with deeds. Fighting with shaky camera footage. Fighting with Town Halls. Fighting with viral media. Fighting any way within our means.

We have made allies in unexpected ways. We have held our noses to vote for politicians which wouldn’t have earned our trip to the voting booth in normal election years. We have lost friends, made enemies, and gained allies. And yet, our fight seems to have hardened the resolve of the Destroyer and whetted the appetite of the Orcs in his cabal.

I would much rather write about the return of liberty to the people and to the states, reversing the flow of progressive statism which had been steadily gaining power since the 1930’s. With the power of governance returning to the states, the fruits of federalism encourage Americans to build their communities to their liking and add to the unified diversity which used to be America’s greatest strength. If a school district decides to reflect the wishes of the community and teach intelligent design theory alongside other origin-of-life theories in their science curriculum, it is at the behest of the community rather than the dictates of an administrator on the other side of the country. Anyone who disagrees with the timbre and direction of this community is free to join a community more to their liking or start their own. I would love to write about how the increased federalism empowered the local legislatures and made political leaders more accountable by placing the responsible parties in our state capitols instead of insulated in plush cloak rooms in Washington, D.C. But I cannot write about such things.

Or I’d prefer to write about our burgeoning economy, which has benefitted from the elimination of onerous regulation. An economy which is no longer forcibly steered by the ideological dictates of ivory tower eggheads, but fueled by market forces and guided by logic and reason. This economy would substantially decrease the price of consumer goods by allowing market pressures to work as are meant to do. As in all free markets, bad products and businesses are punished while good ones are rewarded with success. Removing the cronies from capitalism promotes a greater amount of competition, which in turn drives down prices while increasing quality, as the competitors strive to attract the dollars of picky purchasers. Yet I cannot write of this economy.

You would likely prefer to hear about a strong American foreign policy, which owes its strength to a state-of-the-art arsenal, aimed squarely at our enemies, coupled with a steadfast commitment to our allies which is honored in good times and bad. A foreign policy which is based on old-school diplomatic statecraft instead of duplicitous wiretapping of our friends and enemies alike. I wish I could speak about our robust and healthy military, which is being used for the purpose it was designed: the protection of this nation and the elimination of anyone who would challenge that protection. Of course this military, both active and retired, would be at the front of the line in the doctor’s office, receiving the best healthcare this country has to offer.

These are the things which I wish with all my heart I could discuss. I don’t want to waste my time or yours, penning another column about a political hack from Chicago. But as John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.” Despite the repugnant nature of this President and his administration, there is no topic more relevant and there is no more important fight to win. You may tire of reading about the machinations of this depraved and rapacious administration; I know that I do. But we must continue to advance, step after step. We must become as implacable as the Federal Leviathan we seek to slay. The difference between us and it being that we seek to throw off the bonds of servitude so that our children might experience a renaissance of federalism, economic security, and a strong foreign policy buttressed by a healthy and robust military which is second to none.

For that reason alone, I will continue to speak against this lawless President and his administrative goons until they take my keyboard away or he runs from the field of battle like the craven bully we all know him to be. The fight against tyranny in this land requires constant vigilance, tireless voices, and dauntless outrage at the presence of those who would seek to steal what God alone has given: our liberty, our conscience, and our lives. As we carry the fight to the Fundamental Transformers in our land, let us pick each other up as fatigue sets in. May we never lose sight of the future for which we fight.

Your voice for pro-family values in Illinois! 

On Wednesday the bipartisan initiative to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision fell short of the 60 votes needed to pass the U.S. Senate by a vote of 56-43. U.S. Senator Mark Kirk was one of three Republican senators who voted in favor of this attack on religious freedom.  

The “Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act” would have overruled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)—the law cited by the Supreme Court when it ruled the federal government cannot force a family-owned business to provide contraceptive coverage that goes against its religious beliefs. Also, the bill would have required employers to cover all forms of contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, and other “healthcare” mandated in the Affordable Care Act, regardless of conscience objections.

Claiming the bill would prevent companies from interfering in women’s health-care choices, supporters referred to it as the “Not My Boss’s Business Act.” Apparently what employers pay for is none of their business.

Though this is another victory for religious liberty, the bill is not dead. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who voted against the bill so that he can revive it later, said the Senate would vote again on the issue before year’s end.”

TAKE ACTION: Please contact Senator Kirk to express your disappointment concerning his opposition to freedom of conscience and urge him to change his vote to “NO” if it should come up again.  His Washington D.C. office phone number is (202) 224-2854. Click the take action button below to send Senator Kirk an email or a fax.

The Left is wasting no time responding to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30th ruling upholding religious liberty. U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO) have introduced legislation to undo the protections of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)–the very law that the Court used to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.

Unfortunately, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin has co-sponsored this ominous legislation.

The Protect Women’s Health from Corporate Interference Act (S. 2578) could be used to further undermine all existing federal protections of conscience and religious freedom regarding health coverage mandates. According to our friends at the American Family Association (AFA), “it specifically strikes at the heart of religious liberty by nullifying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” which would affect even those organizations “run by Christians with deeply held convictions about abortion.“

U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Reid has promised to bypass all committees to put this on the “fast track.” This means a vote could take place as early as this week. (Read about Sen. Reid’s racist comment about the Supreme Court.)  

This bill dictates that employers cannot interfere in their employee’s decisions about contraception and other health services through discrimination by (from Sen. Murray’s website):

• Banning employers from refusing to cover any health coverage–including contraceptive coverage–guaranteed to their employees and dependents under federal law.
• Stating that all federal laws do not permit employers to refuse to comply with the ACA requirement, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Including the exemption from the contraceptive coverage requirement for houses of worship and the accommodation for religious non-profits.

This is a very pointed attack against conservative people of faith everywhere. Please take a few moments now to ask U.S. Senator Mark Kirk to oppose the misleadingly titled “Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014.” This liberty-quashing bill runs contrary to the religious liberty that Americans hold dear and the ruling the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a few weeks ago.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send and email or a fax to U.S. Senator Kirk urging him to reject S. 2578. 

Eric Metaxas at the IFI Annual Banquet
Sept. 19th in Rolling Meadows!  
Click HERE for details.

“Tumultuary”: Marked by confusion and disorder

Maybe there’s a silver lining to the cloud created by U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s tumult of confused and disordered thinking. Maybe he has just inadvertently made a case for his own political demise.

Reid, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, was thrown into a paroxysm of anger over the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the “Hobby Lobby” case, which held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects the right of Christian business owners to refuse to be complicit in the deliberate killing of innocent human life. His anger resulted in Tumultuary Harry’s odd claim that “five white men” must not be permitted to  “determine” “women’s lives.”

How many ways can one sentence be wrong? Well, let’s add ‘em up:

• First, and most obvious, one of the five men is not like the others—including hue. Reid may need his vision checked. Or perhaps Reid is using “white” figuratively. Perhaps “white” is a metaphor for all things Reid hates. 

• Second, someone needs to tell Reid that he is…um, gulp…white. 

• Third, Reid has revealed not only his distaste for whiteness (aka self-loathing) but also his diminished view of women. In Reid’s confused worldview, women’s paths in life are set in stone (i.e., “determined”) if their bosses don’t subsidize their birth control. In Reid’s wacky world, poor widdoe girls can’t chart their own course if their mean bosses don’t pay for their IUDs. Reid views women as so impotent that the refusal of their knights in shining armor (aka employers) to pay for their contraception for their volitional sexual activity signifies an absolute loss of agency in their own lives. Maybe women aren’t so inherently powerful after all. 
  
  Instead of railing against the five “white” men who are attempting an existential coup of women the scope of which hasn’t been seen since the slave era, perhaps Harry could remind trembling women of the lives of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Eleanor Roosevelt, Maya Angelou, Betty Friedan, Coretta Scott King, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg whose fertile years were not ones during which contraception was subsidized by employers or the government. 

• Fourth, what does Reid think of other decisions by white men that have “determined” the lives of Americans some of whom were women, you know, men like Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Hugo Black.

Keep your chins up, women! Ignore the bespectacled, tumultuary, only-white-in-a-literal-sense man behind the lectern who thinks you’re feeble and dependent. You can do it! I know you can! You can eke out a life of meaning with even the little reserve of female power you have left after your Scrooge-y bosses withhold that 20 bucks a month. Your bossy patriarchal oppressors trampling on your uteruses (or in Deb Wasserman’s creepy description, “reaching into” your bodies) cannot keep a good woman down.

And, ladies, while you’re exercising your little remaining vestige of power, maybe you can figure out a way to give that confused white man the heave-ho.

Stand with Illinois Family Institute! 

Those who have been literally and figuratively taking a vacation from our increasingly strident culture wars may be surprised to learn that homosexual activist organizations, including Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, have withdrawn their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), long a favorite of the homosexuality-affirming crowd. If passed, ENDA would prevent employers from considering homoerotic predilections and activity and cross-dressing behaviors in employment decisions.

This disastrous legislation has passed the U.S. Senate at the urging of homosexual activists and has moved to the U.S. House. Suddenly this week, the cacophonous voices of homosexual activists and their obsequious disciples began disowning their own legislation. Why this strange turn of events, you may be wondering. Why would Leftists turn on their own legislation?

The reason for their sudden reversal is that the bill includes an exemption for religious organizations. As I recently wrote, homosexual activists seek to leave no square inch of America in which people of faith can exercise their religious faith on matters related to sexual deviance. In their occluded eyes, not even Christian schools—Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant—should be allowed to hire only those teachers who affirm Christian doctrine on homoerotic activity and marriage. 

What prompted their reevaluation of ENDA was the U.S. Supreme Court “Hobby Lobby” case in which at long last a judicial body has confirmed that, yes, Americans have religious liberty. A reaffirmation of this truth has rendered homosexual activists apoplectic.

Lambda Legal writes that the religious exemption “essentially says that anti-LGBT discrimination is different…than discrimination against individuals based on their race or sex.” This may be news to Lambda Legal, but discriminating against persons based on behaviorally neutral conditions like race or sex is absolutely different from making judgments (i.e., discriminating) based on behaviors (e.g., homoerotic activity or cross-dressing) that people voluntarily choose.  

Conservatives could and should learn a little something about playing hardball from homosexual activists. No, I’m not suggesting we hurl obscenities or death threats, or that we lie. I am suggesting conservatives refuse to capitulate on our principles and that we persevere. Sometimes compromise is, indeed, a bad word.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to tell your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA. You can also call your representative through the Capitol switchboard (202) 225-3121 and provide your zip code to be connected to your House member’s office.

The Black Robe Regiment is coming!  
Click HERE for more details.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the $40 million “LGBTQ” lobbying group based in Washington D.C., is ramping up their efforts to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the U.S. House of Representatives. They now have 205 co-sponsors in the U.S. House for H.R. 1755. They need 218 votes to pass it in the House and have it move on to President Barack Obama. As you may remember, ENDA already passed the U.S. Senate last fall. Senators Dick Durbin (D) and Mark Kirk (R) both voted in favor of it. 

ENDA would add those who self-identify as “gay, lesbian, bisexual,” and “transgender” to the list of federally protected groups included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill would institutionalize sexual immorality and gender confusion as a protected right under the law, and it would punish employers, landlords, and people of faith who make distinctions between licit and illicit behaviors.

If this bill passes, every business or organization with more than 15 employees will be barred by federal law from refusing to hire a person because of the person’s “sexual orientation.” Although the bill exempts “religious organizations,” this exemption will undoubtedly result in expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to determine whether an employer is a religious organization since it is not defined in the bill.

ENDA is yet another threat to Christian liberty and traditional values in America. This piece of legislation creates a special class of protection based on someone’s actual or perceived “sexual orientation” or “gender preference.”  If passed, this law could be used to force Christian schools, organizations, Christian business owners, and others to hire and give preferential treatment to people involved in homosexual activity and those who wish they were the opposite sex.

Take ACTION: Please click HERE to tell your U.S. Representative in Washington D.C. to please vote ‘NO’ on ENDA. You can also call your representative through the Capitol switchboard (202) 225-3121 and provide your zip code to be connected to your House member’s office.

Even though U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has consistently stated that ENDA will not be called for a vote, it is extremely important that your elected representative know that you oppose this far left public policy.

H.R. 1755 is co-sponsored by eleven of Illinois’ eighteen U.S. Representatives:  Tammy Duckworth (D-Schaumburg), Luis Gutierrez (D-Chicago), Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Brad Schneider (D-Lincolnshire), Bill Foster (D-Aurora), Cheri Bustos (D-Rock Island), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), and William Enyart (D-Belleville).

The Black Robe Regiment is coming!  
Click HERE for more details.

One year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act, this much is clear: Justice Antonin Scalia is a prophet.

Back in 2003, when the court handed down the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down all criminal statutes against homosexual acts, Scalia declared that the stage was set for the legalization of same-sex unions. That was 2003.

“Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as a formal recognition in marriage is concerned,” wrote Scalia.

He was proved to be absolutely prophetic when, just ten years later, the court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional — thus striking down the federal statute defining marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman.

Once again, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, while Scalia handed down a fiery dissent. As before, Scalia was prophetic.

Even though the Court did not rule that same-sex marriage must be legal in all states, it set the stage for that to happen. As Scalia wrote: “As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

One year later, it is abundantly evident that we did not have to wait or listen for long.  Almost immediately, challenges to state laws and constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages erupted.

In a staggering series of decisions at the federal and state levels, judges explicitly cited the nullification of DOMA and the central arguments of the Windsor decision in striking down those laws and constitutional amendments.

A year after the death of DOMA, not one major decision has defended any of these statutes or amendments. Kennedy’s opinion has been cited as authoritative in virtually every one of these judicial actions.

This has meant that in a single year, the legalization of same sex marriage has become a reality or received a positive judicial action in states including Utah, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon and a host of other states far from where such unions had previously been recognized.

A year later, it is clear that the Supreme Court remains the central political institution of moral transformation in America.

A year later, it is also clear that the court was riding a vast change in public opinion.

We must also see that the time is almost at hand for that transformation to be made complete, at least in terms of the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

What was not clear a year ago was the velocity of this transformation. Even the architects of the revolution are expressing surprise at the speed of these judicial actions.

By the end of this summer, the Supreme Court will likely need to revisit the question once again, this time responding to the cavalcade of lower court decisions the high court spawned.

There is very good reason to expect a decision mandating same-sex marriage coast-to-coast in the Court’s next term, with a decision to be handed down just a year from now, almost to the day.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has been pushing the agenda vigorously, with the federal government now aligning all agency policies in line with the Windsor decision – even extending to areas the decision was never intended to reach.

Where does that leave committed Christians?

Those of us who believe that human flourishing depends upon the recognition and honoring of marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman see this transformation of marriage into something radically different as a grave threat to human society and human happiness.

We do not argue that these damaging effects on society and its individuals will be immediately apparent, but we are sadly confident that the subversion of marriage will bring devastating effects over time.

In retrospect, we can also see that previous subversions of marriage set the stage for the radical redefinition of marriage in our times.

Our failure to answer the challenge of rising divorce rates was, eventually, fatal to our effort to defend marriage against its redefinition in terms of gender. Some of us saw this danger at the time, but there was no adequate effort to oppose the devastating impact of divorce.

The larger sexual revolution also plays an incalculable role in this transformation. The moral separation of sex and marriage among millions of Americans removed any hope of establishing a lasting consensus on the central importance of marriage and its essence as a monogamous man-woman union.

A year after the death of DOMA, it is also clear that very real threats to religious liberty now loom before us. This is perhaps the inevitable consequence of a moral revolution of this scale.

Will the government now coerce the consciences of churches, religious institutions, schools, colleges, social service agencies, and the like? There is now strong evidence that government at every level will attempt such coercion. Will America abandon religious liberty for the sake of erotic freedom?

Those of us who believe same-sex marriage to be a moral impossibility now face a very daunting challenge — how to live in a society that is moving so rapidly against our moral worldview, even as the society shared that worldview for over 2,000 years.

We face the challenge of finding how to relate to our neighbors and contribute to the common good when we see that very society undermining human flourishing in the name of sexual liberty.

A year after the death of DOMA the listening and the waiting are almost over. The revolution is almost complete. The shoe is dropping fast.

One thing is clear to all – no one was exaggerating when the Windsor decision was declared by both sides to be revolutionary.

We can all agree on that much, just one year after the revolution was declared.

This article was first published on the CNN Belief Blog.

Democrat members of the U.S. Senate are seeking a blank check to limit free speech, and the National Right to Life Committee is warning about the impact. 

“This proposed constitutional amendment would give Congress and the 50 state legislatures complete authority to restrict and even criminalize any type of communication of the public that might influence elections,” claims National Right to Life spokesman Douglas Johnson.

Johnson is referring to S.J. Res. 19, which is being pushed by Democrats after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on campaign contributions in the Citizens United case.  

Government.gov describes the bill as a constitutional amendment that “grants Congress and the states the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal and state elections, respectively.”

But Johnson says it is a “radical proposal that would cut the heart out of the First Amendment.”

He says the pro-life group is concerned because abortion is one topic among others “that are out of favor with the institutional news media or certain elites.”

“This is a blank check,” Johnson warns, adding that National Right to Life is telling senators the organization considers the bill a “key issue.” 

“And we do take this seriously, because 44 Democratic senators have already signed their names to this radical proposal,” he says.

The letter NRTL sent to senators can be read here. 

The proposed amendment is reminiscent of the Johnson Amendment, which virtually shut down pastors from speaking about politics from the pulpit, including limits on speech on social issues. 

Take ACTION:  Illinois’ U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is a co-sponsor of this anti-freedom legislation.  Please contact his office to ask him to withdraw his support.  Call his Washington D.C. office at (202) 224-2152 or send him a message through his website by clicking HERE.