We are going to take a short break from politics and focus on something that I believe we can all get behind.
For the last few days storms and tornadoes have wreaked havoc across the country, specifically the southern and midwestern states. Arkansas was hit the worst.
A friend of some of our staff was right in the middle of the storms. Rebekah Tittle (14) along with her father Rob and sister Tori (20) where killed on the 27th of April after their walls collapsed. Kerry Tittle the wife/mother and seven other children survived. 
Unfortunately the family lost everything and their house was completely demolished. Please consider going here and donating to help the Tittle family. 
CNN has a list of websites that you can go to and donate for disaster relief for all those effected by the storms. 
For a memorial post about the Tittles and other families affected go to Family Life. 
See footage of the damage around Arkansas here. 
Please do what you can to help these families in need.

Job 1:21 "Naked came I out of my mother’s womb,
and naked shall I return thither:
the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away;
blessed be the name of the Lord."

This post is written in loving memory of Rob, Tori and Rebekah Tittle. 

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King Jr.

This last Monday the Supreme Court of the United States declared that a provision in the Constitution of the State of Michigan banning affirmative action was Constitutional. The Supreme Court voted 6-2. Attorney General of the State of Michigan issued this statement about the ruling;

As blogger Matt Walsh stated at the time of this ruling: "Affirmative action is discrimination. It’s also bigotry, and strangely enough, the people mostly victimized by the bigotry are precisely the ones supposedly helped by the discrimination. That’s what angers me the most about the whole ludicrous affair. Can you think of anything more belittling than the white folks in charge of universities counting their students like faceless statistics, measuring them based on their skin color, and then decreeing that they need a few more blacks to fill the quota?

This is equality? This is progress? Bureaucratic calculations predetermining the exact allotment of skin pigmentations — this is the sort of diversity we want in America?"

Indeed Affirmative Action is discrimination. It judges people not based upon the content of their character, but the color of their skin. Through Affirmative Action fully qualified people often lose their position or place to less qualified individuals. When you favor one person over another based on something such ethnicity that is discrimination. A person should only be judged on the content of their character. Discriminating against one group to "fix" past discrimination only adds more wrongs to the count. Two wrongs do not make a right regardless of what the wrong was. If all men are created equal - as our Declaration of Independence states - then we should not judge people based upon their skin color.

In recent weeks America has seen an assault on Religious Liberty. After the passage of the Health Care law, Catholic and Protestant non-profit organizations and businesses faced a choice - buy coverage for abortion or pay a fine. In other words compromise their religious beliefs or face heavy fines. Suddenly the First Amendment became merely a sentiment, it no longer protected people as they go about their daily life. Many in the church have refused to speak out about the danger of losing this first freedom. Religious Liberty is about much more than the Government allowing one to believe a set of philosophic and theological principles, it is about the Government allowing individuals to put into practice their belief in their daily lives.

The Supreme Court last week refused to hear the case of a photographer who refused to participate in a homosexual wedding, because she believed that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one women for life. Therefore, by participating in their "wedding," she would be supporting and promoting their way of life - in other words helping these individuals sin.

Whether discussing the case of Hobby Lobby or Elaine Photography, we see a common thread - the Federal Government saying that individuals can only practice their religion in a religious building or setting and not in public. They cannot run their businesses or their public life in accordance to their beliefs, instead they must keep their religion private, and follow the government mandated way of life. If they come after religious liberty the rest will be soon to follow.

My cousin was recently writing a paper on the “pros and cons” of socialism for a class assignment. When I saw the question my reaction was, “Benefits of socialism? What benefits? That everyone is equally miserable?” But this question did get me thinking. Obviously there are some people who believe in socialism, but what benefit do they see from a system that has failed numerous times? The main benefits that people will cite include; “Everyone has Equal Ownership,” “Economic Equality,” “Everyone has a Job” and “Better use of Resources.”  On the outside these may seem like benefits, but they need to be examined closer.

First, the idea that everyone has equal ownership may sound good, until one realizes that this merely means no one really has ownership of anything. Indeed, it is like the old story about Soviet Russia where workers at a factory were asked who owned the factory and the products that were produced, and the workers answered, “We own them.” When asked who owned the three dilapidated vehicles that sat at the end of an empty parking lot the workers answered, “We own them, but the one is driven by the manager of the factory, one by the political commissar, and the other by the police.” Supposed ownership is worthless if you do not see any benefits. In America everything is owned by individuals rather than collectively, but individuals actually reap the benefit of what they do own.

Next, we come to the Socialism’s supposed benefit of “Economic Equality.” This too only sounds good until one realizes the deeper implications. This means that no matter how hard one works they will fail to get ahead or change their economic status. Hard work is thus discouraged. No matter how much harder one may work, they are not rewarded. In a society that is scared of telling someone that they have failed this may seem like a benefit, but instead of providing any quantitative benefits this shrinks or stagnates the economic growth of a society.

The third supposed benefit is that everyone has a job. In the real world this acts similarly to the previous “benefit,” for if everyone has a job, with no potential to lose income, why should one work hard? After all no matter how lousy one’s work is he will not lose their position. Both of these “benefits” combined result in the destruction of the work ethic and entrepreneurship.

The Final supposed “benefit” is that in socialism there will be a “Better use of Resources.” According to this belief, the Government’s regulation of resources will cause the resources to be used more efficiently. The problem is that the Government will not necessarily know where to send resources to encourage the best innovation.  Take for example solar panel company, Solyndra, in the United States, the Government picked which company it believe would produce quality solar panels, and poured millions of dollars to subsidies this one companies product. A year later Solyndra folded, after the Government forced much of their competition to go out of business. Solyndra is one example of where the Government was mistaken, and possibly destroyed the innovation that could have led to more effective solar technology. Socialism picks economic and technological winners and losers, and thus technology fails to reach its full potential.

It is also good to note that if entrepreneurship is discouraged than discovery and invention would also be suppressed, since individuals have nothing to gain. Innovation carries out the desire to use resources more efficiently. If we look throughout history we see that it was economies employing capitalism that learned how to better use energy sources and invent medical, commercial, and consumer devices that have made the lives of everyone much better. Looking at examples of socialized economies we find a failure to efficiently use resources, North Korea, a fully socialist country, has a food shortage despite the fact that they are located in a fertile area of the world. In the real world, the idea that Socialist economies make a better use of their resources is entirely wrong.

Socialism may work in a perfect world, but in the real world it has continually shown to be a failure. Capitalist markets have continually outpaced their socialist counterparts. Government intervention has stagnated Economic growth in many areas around the world. Socialism has failed to pull any nation out of poverty. A final example of this is a comparison of the history of West Germany and East Germany. 20 years after the Second World War, West Germany had healed and was prospering, but just on the other side of the Berlin Wall there were still bombed out buildings.

The Senate Conservatives Fund has released a new ad highlighting Chris McDaniel, running for Senate against 40+ year incumbent Senator Thad Cochran in the Republican primary on June 3rd.

Get involved and support constitutional conservative Chris McDaniel at www.mcdaniel2014.com!

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The name sounds simple and straightforward enough, right?  Who wouldn't support a treaty about the rights of disabled Americans?

But despite its name, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (or CRPD for short) actually threatens our national sovereignty and does little to nothing for Americans with disabilities.

Under the Constitution, international treaties ratified by the United States become the law of the land -- overruling the US Constitution, federal laws, state constitutions, and state laws.  The CRPD also gives the United Nations power to ensure that the United States is complying with the treaty, surrendering sovereignty directly to unelected bureaucrats at the UN.

In addition to undermining our national sovereignty, the CRPD, if ratified by the U.S. Senate, would turn the parent-child relationship on its head by establishing a dangerous new legal standard for dealing with children with disabilities: the best interests of the child standard.

In Article 7(2), the CRPD states: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”  What this essentially means is that the government and the UN determine what is best for a child, not their parents.  Putting a government bureaucrat into all parent-child relationships will never prove to be beneficial for society.

Proponents of the CRPD will often point to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and say that the CRPD contains the same standards as the ADA.  But in a recent Townhall.com column, former Senator Rick Santorum, a national leader in the fight against the CRPD, bluntly deals with this falsehood:

Senator Santorum goes on the explain the differences between CRPD and the ADA in his column, which we highly recommend that you take a few minutes to read.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio makes an important point about the path America should follow in the international arena when it comes to the rights of the disabled:

US ratification of this treaty has no impact on other nations.  Even nations that have already ratified the CRPD are not complying with its terms, and they will not suddenly decide to do so if the United States ratifies the treaty.

In closing, Rick Santorum sums it up well:

For more information on the CRPD, as well as common misconceptions about the treaty, please visit www.freedomsdefenders.com/crpd.  There, you can also email your Senators and donate to help raise awareness about the dangers of this UN treaty.  Don't forget to like RejectCRPD on Facebook and follow @RejectCRPD on Twitter as well!

The Kentucky Senate primary is a battle between two visions for the Republican Party.  The GOP Establishment wants to re-elect their moderate incumbent, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.  The conservative grassroots are demanding a real conservative leader -- and Matt Bevin is that candidate.

Kentucky has a chance to elect a real conservative to the United States Senate in 2014 -- businessman & former U.S. Army Captain Matt Bevin.

Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, notes that "Matt Bevin is a true conservative who will fight to stop the massive spending, bailouts, and debt that are destroying our country. He is not afraid to stand up to the establishment and he will do what it takes to stop Obamacare."

Matt Bevin also has strong support from conservative voters in Kentucky.  The Boone County GOP Christmas gala straw poll, attended by nearly 700 Republicans, resulted in Bevin winning with over 80 percent of the votes against Mitch McConnell in the race for U.S. Senate. He has the support of Take Back Kentucky, United Kentucky Tea Party, Louisville Tea Party, Northern Kentucky Right to Life, Angela Minter, Executive Director Sisters for Life to name a few.

 As is the case when a GOP backed candidate is challenged, Bevin is no match financially against McConnell.  This important Republican primary election is going to depend entirely on grassroots and volunteers.

Even if you don't live in Kentucky, you can tell the GOP that you support real conservatives who will defend faith, family, and freedom.

GET INVOLVED:

Volunteer for Matt Bevin

Show your support: Donate your Facebook cover photo!

Join Matt on Facebook

Follow @MattBevin on Twitter

Follow @YouthForBevin on Twitter

#Bevin2014: Tweet Your Support for Matt

If you want your children and grandchildren to have a shot at educational freedom and a decent education, now is the time to act.

In an email to supporters, the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) sent out an urgent action item.  We join them in urging you to call your senators and representatives and give them this message (or a paraphrased version):

“I strongly oppose the Common Core standards, and do not want the federal government using federal funds to support this controversial program.  Please sign onto the Grassley letter [if you are calling your senators] or Steve King letter [if you are calling your U.S. Representative] to members of the Appropriations Committee which urges Congress to end federal funds in support of the Common Core.  States, not the federal government, should decide what is best for their education system.”

The capitol switch board number is 202-224-3121.

Take action to defend educational freedom!